This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
News

Civil Litigation,
Labor/Employment

Oct. 23, 2020

Uber influencing drivers to support Prop. 22, suit claims

The lawsuit was filed by two drivers and two organizations that promote improved conditions for workers, Worksafe and Chinese Progressive Association, and identifies a proposed class of 200,000 drivers.

By telling drivers they will lose their jobs if Proposition 22 doesn't pass and thereby pressuring them to vocally support the ballot measure, Uber has made those drivers into a captive audience for its political messaging, according to a proposed class action filed Thursday.

The lawsuit was filed by two drivers and two organizations that promote improved conditions for workers, Worksafe and Chinese Progressive Association, and identifies a proposed class of 200,000 drivers.

Proposition 22, which is on the Nov. 3 ballot, would exempt rideshare drivers from the independent contractor standard codified in Assembly Bill 5.

"This is an absurd lawsuit, without merit, filed solely for press attention and without regard for the facts," Davis White, Uber's director of California public affairs, said in a statement Thursday. "It can't distract from the truth: that the vast majority of drivers support Prop 22, and have for months."

A spokesperson for the Yes on 22 campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

"Through public comments and extensive, repeated messaging that is triggered every time a driver logs on to Uber's mandatory driver app, Uber has threatened plaintiffs and class members that if they do not support Uber's political efforts regarding Proposition 22, those drivers will lose their jobs or suffer other adverse work-related consequences," read Thursday's complaint, which was filed by employment attorneys at Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe LLP and nonprofit Legal Aid at Work. Valdez et al. v. Uber, CGC20587266 (San Francisco Super. Ct., filed Oct. 22, 2020).

The case further alleged Uber has violated the state Labor Code, which bans employers from controlling or directing the political activities of their employees, and threatening discharge or loss of employment to influence an employee's political activities.

The plaintiffs are seeking civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, and plan to amend the lawsuit to add a Private Attorneys General Act claim if the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency declines to pursue the penalties itself, the complaint said.

#360107

Jessica Mach

Daily Journal Staff Writer
jessica_mach@dailyjournal.com

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com