LOS ANGELES—A federal judge in Los Angeles last week rejected a lawsuit that sought to have the controversial California “gig worker” law known as AB5 struck down as unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed in December of last year by the ridesharing service Uber and its subsidiary, the food-delivery app-based firm Postmates.
The law forces employers to reclassify many freelance workers as “employees” — a costly move for most companies — or drop them. While the law has caused confusion in numerous industries, the adult industry is particularly affected because most performers work on an independent basis.
Despite more than 60 exemptions to the law, the adult industry is not mentioned anywhere in AB5, or its recently-passed companion bill AB2257. The second bill created an exemption to the reclassification requirements for “performance artists,” though how that would apply to adult performers remains uncertain.
But the law was originally aimed at Uber and other ride-hailing app companies, such as its main competitor, Lyft. The law requires Uber and Lyft, and similar companies to hire their drivers as employees, complete with benefits, a minimum wage, and other benefits and protections afforded to workers with “employee status.”
In the lawsuit, Uber claims that AB5 is unconstitutional because it deprives drivers of due process by preventing them “from pursuing their chosen occupation as business owners in the sharing economy.”
But the judge slapped down that argument, saying that even if they were hired as employees, drivers would be free to work part-time, as long as the company followed state labor laws.
Proposition 22, which appears on the California ballot this November, would specifically exempt those companies from AB5, accomplishing essentially the same thing as the lawsuit intended. And according to a Republican state assembly member who has led an effort to repeal AB5, exempting Uber and Lyft would essentially kill the law in the state legislature.
“At that point their targets will be out if it, and they will just be meaninglessly oppressing folks in hundreds of other professions, who aren’t part of big companies or anything like that,” Sacramento-area legislator Kevin Kiley told AVN in an interview.
But last week, Central District of California U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee — an 2010 appointee of President Barack Obama — rejected Uber’s argument that AB5 unfairly singles out “modern app-based” companies, while allowing exemptions for dozens of other industries.
In February, about a month after the law took effect, Gee also rejected Uber’s request to put a freeze on enforcement of the law against the app companies.
This time, however, Gee’s ruling left the door open for Uber to file another lawsuit, seeking to get rid of the law.
“The court’s order granted us permission to amend our complaint,” Uber said in a statement following the ruling. “The enactment of even newer bills granting several additional exemptions to AB5 makes it crystal clear — now more than ever — that this law is irrational and unconstitutional.”
In a separate case, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has sued Uber and Lyft, claiming that they are failing to abide by the AB5 requirements.
Photo By Wikimedia Commons
