June 25th 2021
Tag
In the ongoing case of Chamber of Commerce v. City of Seattle dealing with the legality of Seattle’s for-hire vehicle driver collective bargaining ordinance, the Chamber and co-plaintiffs moved for summary judgment in February, arguing that the ordinance is...
Amazon workers went on strike across Europe during Amazon Prime Day. The yearly shopping sale is the e-commerce giant’s busiest day of the year, usually netting the company more than $2 billion. On Monday, nearly 1,800 warehouse workers walked off site in Spain and...
In “The Case for Letting Uber Drivers Organize,” Samuel Estreicher argues that the 1914 Clayton Act allows rideshare drivers to organize without violating antitrust law. In the Clayton Act, Congress exempted workers from antitrust principles. Congress specified,...
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.”
I link to an amicus curiae brief that was filed Friday in the Ninth Circuit appeal, Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. City of Seattle, No. 17-35640, with the help of Matthew J. Segel and Kymberly K. Evanson of the Pacifica Law Group. The brief offers an...