Alameda County Judge rules that California's Proposition 22 is unconstitutional

[NewYorkExpress]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/20/politics/california-proposition-22-uber-lyft/index.html

A California judge ruled Friday that the costly and controversial 2020 ballot measure exempting firms like Uber and Lyft from having to classify their gig workers in the state as employees rather than as independent contractors is unconstitutional.

Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart and Uber-owned Postmates bankrolled Proposition 22, or Prop 22, with more than $200 million, underscoring how important its passage was to the future of their businesses.

But in a major blow to the companies, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch found that "the entirety of Proposition 22 is unenforceable" because a section within the measure "limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers' compensation law" and "is not severable" from the rest of the measure.
Roesch made specific reference to a section of the proposition that requires a seven-eighth legislative majority for amendments to pass, ruling it to be in defiance of the state's constitution.

"A prohibition on legislation authorizing collective bargaining by app-based drivers does not promote the right to work as an independent contractor, nor does it protect work flexibility, nor does it provide minimum workplace safety and pay standards for those workers," Roesch wrote in his ruling.

"It appears only to protect the economic interest of the network companies in having a divided, ununionized workforce, which is not a stated goal of the legislation."

Would any of our California based posters know if this ruling is correct?

[Donerail]

Would any of our California based posters know if this ruling is correct?

What do you mean by "correct"?

[NewYorkExpress]

Would any of our California based posters know if this ruling is correct?

What do you mean by "correct"?

Legally correct?

As in, the judge in question is making a ruling based on the Constitution of California and not his political opinions?

[politicallefty]

Jurisprudence at the state level is far more difficult to figure out, but it does appear to be a decision based on the California Constitution. There's a reasonable chance this could reach the California Supreme Court. It wasn't long ago that it had a Republican majority, something that was around ever since the 1986 removals. It's a far more liberal court now, with Brown having appointed 4 Justices, Newsom 1, and Schwarzenegger 2.

I'm not sure if this is just something from a strongly principled judge or something that might have sway with the California Supreme Court. From a political standpoint, it would be hilarious to see that much money go down the drain from these horrible companies.

[Donerail]

Would any of our California based posters know if this ruling is correct?

What do you mean by "correct"?

Legally correct?

As in, the judge in question is making a ruling based on the Constitution of California and not his political opinions?

No such thing as "legally correct." The judge issued a ruling grounded in what he says, and what one side's attorneys say, is a correct interpretation of California law. The other side's attorneys will argue on appeal that it's a flagrant misinterpretation with no basis in California law.