Law and the Future of Gig Work in California: Problems and Potentials (Part 2)
This is the second part of a two-part post on AB5. A concern that has been articulated about...
May 24th 2022
This is the second part of a two-part post on AB5. A concern that has been articulated about...
Last week, a coalition of 75 professors from across the country sent a letter to California lawmakers in support of AB5. AB5, which will soon be voted on in the California Senate, codifies the legal standard articulated in Dynamex v. Superior Court (2018) and extends it to all California employment laws. In Dynamex, the Court created a presumption of employee status and set forth a simplified legal standard (“ABC” test) for an entity attempting to classify workers as independent contractors.
New York City’s new minimum payments rule for drivers in the ride-hailing sector is sorely...
s most readers of this blog know, the Ninth Circuit will soon be deciding Seattle’s authorization to implement its recently enacted ordinance, which permits collective bargaining among drivers in their bargains with Uber and similar firms. In March of last year, the Chamber of Commerce sued the city of Seattle, claiming (among other things) that Section 1 of the Sherman Act’s prohibition of “combination[s] … in restraint of trade or commerce” preempts the ordinance. More recently, the district court granted Seattle’s motion to dismiss, permitting the ordinance to go forward under the state action exemption, under which a state (and its political subdivisions, when authorized by the state) may regulate a domain in a way that “displaces competition.”