CA ride-hailing drivers could get back pay

From CalMatters economy reporter Levi Sumagaysay:

Tens of thousands of California ride-hailing drivers, and possibly more, could eventually get back pay after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that clears the way for the state and some cities to proceed with their lawsuits against Uber and Lyft.

The two companies had argued that because their drivers had signed arbitration agreements, the wage theft lawsuits that California filed against Uber and Lyft in 2020 were invalid. But last week, the nation’s highest court declined to hear the companies’ appeal.

In a statement to CalMatters on Tuesday, California Labor Commissioner Lilia Garcia-Brower said her office, along with state Attorney General Rob Bonta and city attorneys from Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego, have been trying to pursue enforcement actions on behalf of the drivers for more than four years. Their lawsuits — two by the labor commissioner against each of the companies, and another by Bonta and the three cities — accuse the companies of misclassifying their workers as independent contractors; failing to pay minimum wage for all time worked; not paying for breaks, overtime and sick time; and more. 

Garcia-Brower: “We are ready for our day in court to obtain recovery of wages and expenses for these workers.” 

Bonta’s office said in an email Tuesday that its case, which it also brought in 2020, can now proceed in California Superior Court: “We remain committed to defending the rights of California workers to receive the benefits and protections to which they are legally entitled.”

Theane Evangelis, an attorney for Uber, said in an emailed comment after the U.S. Supreme Court decision last week that the court should have taken a federal arbitration law into consideration: “While the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to weigh in now, it should do so in the future.”

State officials filed the lawsuits before Uber, Lyft and other gig companies successfully passed a ballot measure in November 2020, exempting them from California labor law. That measure, Proposition 22, was upheld over the summer by the state Supreme Court. Because Prop. 22 allows gig companies to treat drivers and delivery workers as independent contractors, the labor commissioner’s office can no longer handle wage claims filed by gig workers after the law went into effect, meaning nobody at the state is enforcing the industry-backed law. 

But Garcia-Brower is still trying to hold the companies accountable for the pre-Prop. 22 era, though she said the process will take more time: “We are confident we can demonstrate that Uber and Lyft drivers were employees under the test that applied at the time.” 

Uber had argued that that test, Assembly Bill 5, which would have required the companies to treat their drivers and delivery workers as employees, was unconstitutional and unfairly targeted them. But Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court also denied the company’s petition to be heard on that issue.

Evangelis, on that decision: “Fortunately, in Proposition 22, California voters rejected AB 5.”

A spokesperson for Lyft would not comment.

Opponents of Prop. 36, which would increase penalties for certain drug and theft offenses, argue that it could return California to mass incarceration. But there’s another concern critics are flagging: 

Even if Prop. 36 led to what supporters say will be the “mass treatment” of criminal offenders for substance abuse or mental health issues, counties aren’t prepared to take on an influx of people seeking help, writes CalMatters’ justice reporter Cayla Mihalovich.

Under Prop. 36, when a person is convicted for drug possession for a third time, it would no longer be considered a misdemeanor but a “treatment-mandated felony.” The person could choose treatment or three years in prison. Proponents say the measure would help curb California’s crime and drug abuse rates. 

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, one prominent Democrat backing the measure: “Prop. 36, while imperfect, is very much a step in the right direction. … If you are deep in the throes of an addiction to the point where you’ve been arrested multiple times, there may be other co-occurring crimes committed and you are unwilling to engage in treatment, we then have a choice.”

But California doesn’t have enough treatment beds or services to meet the existing number of patients. A 2022 report by the state found that 70% of the state’s 58 counties reported “urgently needing” residential addiction treatment services and 22 counties don’t have any residential treatment facilities at all. Many substance use disorder treatment facilities also often do not accept patients with prior run-ins with the law.

Cristine Soto Deberry, executive director of the Prosecutors Alliance of California: “It’s irresponsible to tell voters that people will get treatment when you know they will not. … They’ve wrapped their bill in baloney. The only way to get voters to vote for their prison initiative is to tell them it’s about treatment.” 

Learn more about treatment under Prop. 36 in Cayla’s story.

Let’s dive into some more election news:

Mobilizing Muslim voters: With an estimated 1 million Muslims in California, the Council on American-Islamic Relations — the country’s largest Muslim civil rights organization — released its California voter guide Tuesday, seeking to raise awareness of the Gaza war and hate toward Muslims. Along with scorecards that track how state legislators voted on seven recent laws that the group either supported or opposed, the guide includes the organization’s official positions on two ballot measures: “Yes” on Prop. 6 to limit forced prison labor, and “no” on the crime measure Prop. 36. During the March primary, the group’s California political action committee called on Democratic voters to leave the presidential race blank to protest President Joe Biden’s support of Israel in the Gaza war.

Counting Latino voters: A new poll out today suggests that in five competitive congressional districts in California, Latino voters could boost Democrats. In the 13th and 22nd Districts, Latinos make up a majority of eligible voters and the Democratic challengers lead among them, according to the Latino Community Foundation survey. The Democratic challengers also lead among Latino voters in the 27th, 41st and 45th Districts, though they make up a smaller share of voters. Latino voters polled are more willing to back candidates who support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, abortion access and expanding child tax credits. “Latino voters in California’s competitive districts will play a crucial role in determining the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives,” said Julián Castro, the foundation’s CEO, in a statement.

Protecting the election: The Secretary of State’s website for all things election security is live. To ensure the integrity and protection of the upcoming election, the site includes information to debunk common security rumors; contact information for the public to report misinformation; an explanation video; and other resources and links.

This week, CalMatters video strategy director Robert Meeks is sharing versions of our “Prop. in a Minute” videos with viewers of our partner PBS SoCal. Watch the ones on Prop. 2 and on Prop. 3.

SoCalMatters airs at 5:58 p.m. weekdays on PBS SoCal.