Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld

Grunfeld has long relished a good fight.

Well-known for challenging the state prisons department's treatment of California prisoners and parolees with disabilities, Grunfeld also doesn't waver in litigating for employee rights.

Earlier this year, she won an appeal defeating a motion to compel arbitration from Lime, the Bay Area startup company that places dockless electric scooters in cities throughout the country. Her client, an independent contractor tasked with collecting and recharging the company's scooters overnight and returning them to service the next morning, alleged he and the company's 15,000 other "juicers" were intentionally denied pay for the time they spent locating and charging the scooters, violating various labor code provisions under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

Grunfeld went to court arguing that under the California Supreme Court's Dynamex decision, in which the high court established strict requirements for classifying a worker as an independent contractor, as well as under AB 5, all juicers should be considered company employees and be subject to wage and labor benefits. It would be impossible for the company, she argued, to meet the ABC test outlined in the Dynamex decision for these workers. Dynamex Operation West Inc., v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018).

"We can't tolerate a system where the poorest people are forced to work for sub-minimum wage in these really unpleasant and difficult jobs," Grunfeld said in an interview.

The case has evolved significantly since the first amended complaint was filed in San Francisco in 2018. Last year, the trial court denied Lime's petition to compel arbitration and granted Plaintiff's motion to coordinate four statewide cases against the company. Olabi v. Neutron Holdings, Inc., dba Lime, CGC-18-569564 (S. F., Super. Ct. filed Sept. 10, 2018).

Lime argued arbitration was the only remedy because the plaintiff signed an agreement stipulating that he and Lime would arbitrate "any and all disputes between or among them," including his classification as an independent contractor.

In denying Lime's petition on appeal, the 1st District Court of Appeal in June issued a scathing decision, calling the company's arguments "pure sophistry." Olabi v. Neutron Holdings Inc., dba Lime, A156990 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st. filed June 19, 2020).

At the time of that decision, Grunfeld had been preparing to lead the four coordinated cases at trial. However, Lime has since purportedly entered into a reverse auction in one of the four cases and settled for what Grunfeld described as "a very cheap amount."

"We're fighting that settlement, and we have objected to it," Grunfeld said.

A decision on whether the settlement can go forward is expected in the coming months, and a trial date for the remaining three cases is scheduled for March 1, 2021, Grunfeld said.

"Assuming the court does not approve the settlement, we are confident that we can show at trial that Lime's model of deploying these juicers under its control to pick up the scooters violated AB 5 and Dynamex," Grunfeld said.

-- Tyler Pialet