Judge denies drivers a restraining order on Uber’s political speech

A trial judge refused to grant Uber drivers' request for a temporary restraining order against the ride-share company, reasoning that such an injunction would infringe on Uber's right to free speech.

If granted, the order would have banned Uber from making statements supporting Proposition 22 on its app. It would have also required Uber to inform its California drivers that they can vote any way they want on the ballot measure, which would exempt ride-share drivers from Assembly Bill 5, and that Uber cannot control their political activities.

"Two features of the proposed TRO are particularly repugnant to free speech rights," San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard B. Ulmer Jr. wrote in an order issued late Wednesday afternoon. "First, temporary restraining orders that 'forbid speech activities' are 'classic examples of prior restraints,' and are 'the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.'"

The second feature Ulmer criticized was the plaintiffs' request that Uber inform drivers of their right to vote against Proposition 22, which the judge characterized as "compelled political speech."

In a statement Thursday, counsel for Uber and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP partner Theane Evangelis, said, "We are pleased the court rejected this baseless effort to obtain a prior restraint on the eve of an election that would have stifled speech and debate in blatant violation of the First Amendment,"

Two Uber drivers filed the proposed class action last week, in collaboration with Worksafe and Chinese Progressive Association. The complaint said Uber was pressuring drivers to vocally support Proposition 22. Valdez et al. v. Uber, CGC20587266 (San Francisco Super. Ct., filed Oct. 22, 2020).

David A. Lowe, who represents the plaintiffs and is a partner at Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe LLP, said in an email Wednesday evening that the plaintiffs' attorneys were proud of what resulted from the court proceedings.

"In response to our motion for a temporary restraining order, Uber notified the court ... that it stopped its coercive practice of polling employees about their support for Prop. 22 the day after we filed our lawsuit," Lowe wrote. "In addition, Uber promised in writing and under oath that it has not and would not retaliate against drivers because of their refusal to participate in Uber's political campaign or their opposition to Prop. 22."

In the brief she filed opposing the plaintiffs' temporary restraining order request, Evangelis noted Uber polled drivers on their views on Proposition 22 between Sept. 17 and Oct. 23. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit on Oct. 22.

Meanwhile, a declaration filed Tuesday with the court by Brad Rosenthal, Uber's director of strategic operational initiatives, stated, "Uber has not taken, and will not take, any adverse action against any driver for their position on Prop. 22."

Lowe said, "These are both major wins for the drivers and were primary objectives of our temporary restraining order motion and this lawsuit."