Court reporting business sues state, says AB 5 unconstitutional

A company that provides court reporters to some state courts and federal agencies has sued state Attorney General Xavier Becerra, alleging the new employee-presumptive law Assembly Bill 5 is unconstitutional.

Filed Jan. 16 in Sacramento County Superior Court, the suit claims the law violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, denying Sacramento-based plaintiff Williams, Weisberg & Weisberg the ability to provide secretarial, typing, word processing, resume' writing and court reporting services.

The company, doing business under the name Diamond Court Reporters, provides court reporting to several state entities, including the justice, industrial relations and general services departments; the state prison authority; and the superior courts in Yolo and Sacramento counties. Diamond also services the U.S. Eastern District of California courts and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Sacramento. Williams, Weisberg & Weisberg v. Becerra, 00273530 (Sac. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 16, 2020).

Diamond contracts with more than 100 licensed court reporters to handle its workload, according to the complaint. Diamond alleges it would not be able to fulfill its government contracts if they're required to "either dismiss all its independent [court reporters] or to formally hire each of them individually as employees," due to costs.

Under AB 5, workers are employees unless they pass the three-prong "ABC" test and prove they are a) free from the hirer's control and direction, b) work outside the usual course of the hirer's business, and c) engage in the same kind of work as the hirer independently.

While AB 5 was meant to protect workers from alleged misclassification, it includes a number of exemptions to several industries. The suit alleges court reporters should have been exempt as well.

"AB 5 treats plaintiffs and other ... referral service providers differently by in effect burdening them with costly new obligations to comply with the Labor Code and Unemployment [I]nsurance Code provisions for employees," the complaints reads.

Calls to the plaintiff's attorney, Michael E. Dietrick of Petaluma, and the attorney general's office were not answered by press time late Tuesday.