The Gig Is Up? California AG, City Attorneys in LA, SF and San Diego Hit Uber and Lyft With Worker Misclassification Lawsuit
In a potentially ominous note for other gig economy companies, the government lawyers said they will be making sure that other companies are correctly classifying workers under California law.
May 05, 2020 at 02:30 PM
3 minute read
California's attorney general and the city attorneys of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco have alleged that Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. have violated California law by classifying drivers as independent contractors.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in San Francisco Superior Court, the state and city lawyers assert that the ride-hailing companies have exploited hundreds of thousands of California workers.
At a press conference announcing the lawsuit Tuesday morning, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Los Angeles City Attorney Michael Feuer, and San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott said that companies are avoiding millions of dollars in payroll taxes and skirting their responsibility to provide benefits like health care, a minimum wage and reimbursement for expenses for ride-hail drivers.
"California taxpayers end up having to carry the load that Uber and Lyft don't want to accept," Becerra said.
In a potential ominous note for other gig economy companies, Herrera said the government lawyers will be "keeping our finger on the pulse to make sure that gig economy companies are working in accordance with the law."
Herrera pointed to a suit previously filed by Elliott against Instacart where San Diego Superior Judge Timothy Taylor found in February that California law required the grocery delivery company to classify its "shoppers" as employees. Herrera said the Instacart case was "Indicative of the attention that you can expect all of us to pay to make sure companies are abiding by the law and living up to their obligations."
The California officials are asking the court to issue an order preventing Uber and Lyft from continuing to misclassify drivers and to impose penalties of $2,500 for each violation under the state's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks to enforce Assembly Bill 5, which codifies the worker classification test laid out by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court and ensures access to paid sick leave, disability, family leave and unemployment insurance. The suit seeks an injunction requiring the companies to comply with that law.
A spokesperson for Lyft said, "We are looking forward to working with the attorney general and mayors across the state to bring all the benefits of California's innovation economy to as many workers as possible, especially during this time when the creation of good jobs with access to affordable healthcare and other benefits is more important than ever."
An Uber representative said that during an economic crisis, with four million people out of work, officials and businesses should be working to make it easier for people to quickly earn money.
"We will contest this action in court, while at the same time pushing to raise the standard of independent work for drivers in California, including with guaranteed minimum earnings and new benefits," the company said in a statement.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readPatreon Hit With Lawsuit for Allegedly Diverting Subscriber Data to Meta
Trending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250