The California driver who sued the controversial Proposition 22 law said he could “breathe a little easier” after a judge found it unconstitutional, but there is still a legal battle going on as industry giants prepare an appeal. .
Proposition 22, a voting measure backed by Uber, Lyft and others, defines co-workers and related workers as self-employed contractors rather than workers, a distinction that provides them with less labor protections under state law.
The corporations spent more than $ 200 million in support of the measure, according to The Associated Press. California voters passed proposal 22 last November and got 58% of the vote.
Last Friday, however, Alameda County High Court Judge Frank Roesch ruled that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional and unenforceable after a lawsuit was filed by three drivers and the International Service Employees Union.
“The court ruling is not just about us drivers, neither Uber nor Lyft,” Hector Castellanos, a full-time shared travel driver and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, told reporters during a call organized by SEIU on Monday. “To me, it also means companies can’t afford to follow the law.”
“There’s a lot to celebrate and now I feel like I can breathe a little easier,” Castellanos added. “Sometimes it’s hard to find the words to describe what that means to me. But one thing is for sure, I’m happy to share this news with more drivers and keep talking and defending our rights.”
Companion and car-sharing driver Michael Robinson added that he feels “relieved.”
“Proposition 22 was deceptively written by concert companies to protect their profits,” Robinson said during a press conference hosted by SEIU in California. “I want other people to remember it and the court ruling, as these same concert corporations are trying to bring protection laws to the road.”
“I’m glad the court has sided with the pilots, but the fight is far from over,” Robinson said. “We will continue to focus on how concert companies are putting their profits above their workers.”
“We will not stop until we are treated with the dignity and respect we deserve,” he added.
Cherri Murphy, a car driver from Oakland, California, told ABC News Monday that she worked at Lyft for three years before stopping when the pandemic hit last spring because she was worried about risking exposure. -they and her family to the virus. She still works as an organizer fighting for the rights of car-sharing drivers in the state.
“This court ruling that Proposition 22 is unconstitutional is a major victory for all drivers across California,” he told ABC News Monday. “What it indicates is that this fight is not over and is an important step in building a more powerful movement to protect application-based drivers.”
Murphy said the law “disproportionately harmed African Americans, people of color, immigrants, and low-wage workers,” and called it a “corporate takeover.”
Lyft forwarded ABC News’ request for comment to Geoff Vetter, a spokesman for a group dubbed the Protect App-Based Drivers & Services Coalition, which is backed by Uber, Lyft and others and was a defendant. of the SEIU demand.
“We believe the judge made a serious mistake ignoring the century-long jurisprudence that required courts to ensure voters’ right of initiative, ”Vetter said in a statement. “This outrageous decision is an affront to the vast majority of California voters who passed Proposition 22.”
“We will file an immediate appeal and we are confident that the Court of Appeal will uphold proposal 22,” Vetter added. “It is important to note that this High Court ruling is not binding and will be suspended immediately after our appeal. All provisions of Proposition 22 will remain in effect until the appeal process is completed.”
Vetter also shared a comment from Jim Pyatt, a California-based application-based shared driver that supported Proposition 22.
“This ruling is wrong and disrespectful to the hundreds of thousands of shared and delivery-driven drivers in apps like me, who have actively supported Prop 22,” Pyatt said.
“It is clear that the special interests behind this frivolous challenge are attacking the overwhelming will of voters and the decisive desires of drivers who struggled to stay independent,” he added.
An Uber spokesman told ABC News that it plans to file an appeal and that the measure will remain in effect pending appeal.
“This ruling ignores the will of the vast majority of California voters and defies both logic and the law. We don’t need to take our word for it: the California Attorney General strongly defended the constitutionality of Proposition 22 in this case.” said company spokesman Noah. Edwardsen said in a statement.
“We’re going to appeal and hope to win,” Edwardsen added. “Meanwhile, Proposition 22 remains in effect, including all the protections and benefits it provides to self-employed workers across the state.”
Murphy told ABC News that Uber’s announcement is no surprise.
“It doesn’t surprise me, but it disappoints me,” Murphy said.
Scott Kronland, a lawyer representing the SEIU in the lawsuit, said during a report call Monday that Judge Roesch’s ruling is “solid” and “well reasoned.”
“There were several ways in which the drafters of the initiative included provisions that conflict with our state constitution, which is the higher law, and therefore we hope that the resolution will be upheld on appeal,” he said. Kronland.
Alma Hernandez, the executive director of SEIU California, added that she expects the judge’s ruling to send a “clear” message to states in other countries trying to enact similar legislation.
“When you try to go to the ballot to buy your own law to deny basic rights to workers, there will be a fight and the law will continue to be upheld by our courts,” Hernandez said.
“I know this is a national agenda that these companies have tried to execute across the country and are trying to mimic Prop. 22 in other states, but it serves to warn that these fights will be challenged,” he said. added. “And they’re not on the right side of the story.”