In today’s news and commentary, a Teamsters-backed bill requiring human operators inside autonomous delivery vehicles is before the California State Senate, while the Eighth Circuit considers a challenge to Minnesota’s new construction worker misclassification law and whether “hav[ing] a family to support” is a gendered comment.

A bill requiring human operators inside autonomous delivery vehicles is before the California State Senate, having passed the State Assembly with overwhelming support (57-7). The bill, A.B. 33, is the latest attempt of the Teamsters to protect drivers from being replaced by self-driving vehicles. The Teamsters backed two similar bills in 2023 and 2024, both of which were passed by the California State Assembly and Senate before being vetoed Governor Gavin Newsom. Whereas those earlier bills targeted large commercial trucks weighing over 10,000 pounds, the new bill prohibits delivery of commercial goods to residences and businesses by an autonomous vehicle without a human operator inside. Newsom’s justification for failing to sign the earlier bills was that the DMV is better positioned to regulate self-driving vehicles. If Newsom vetoes this latest bill, the Teamsters are contemplating turning it into a ballot measure.

Meanwhile, North America’s Building Trades Unions (NABTU) filed an amicus brief at the Eighth Circuit last week in support of a Minnesota misclassification law. The district court in this case, Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. v. Blissenbach, denied trade groups a temporary restraining order to block the newly amended state law, which now includes a 14-part test (up from the previous 9-part test) for classifying construction workers as independent contractors. The court below found that the trade groups failed to show they were likely to succeed on their claims that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and imposes excessive fines. NABTU’s brief reiterated these arguments while also making the positive case for the law, which protects construction workers from misclassification.

Finally, the Eighth Circuit heard oral arguments in an appeal of Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a case centering on the question of whether a comment about “ha[ving] a family to support” was evidence of gender discrimination. Plaintiff Cloetta Brady argued that, after 20 years at Walmart, she was passed over for a promotion that went to a male colleague with half her experience. Her supervisor told her he gave the role to the male colleague because he “had a family to support.” The court below granted summary judgment to Walmart, reasoning that the statement was gender-neutral because “caring for a child does not turn on gender.” On appeal, Brady drew a more nuanced distinction between the complementary gender stereotypes of men as providers and women as caregivers.