State Supreme Court rejects challenge to Prop. 22

Lawsuit alleging measure violates California law could be re-filed in lower court

A lawsuit alleging Proposition 22 violates state law was rejected by the California Supreme Court, which declined on Wednesday to hear the case.

The 5-2 decision was another blow in efforts by labor unions to stop app-based gig companies from classifying their workers as independent contractors.

“We are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear our case, but make no mistake: we are not deterred in our fight to win a livable wage and basic rights,” said Hector Castellanos, a rideshare driver in California and one of the plaintiffs in the case.

Prop. 22 was passed in November with support from 59 percent of California voters, giving companies such as Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart the right to classify their workers as independent contractors rather than employees, and provide less comprehensive labor protections, as a result.

The victory came at a steep cost. These companies put up a collective total of more than $200 million to back the bill, arguing its passage would allow drivers to maintain autonomy over their schedules and ensure no costs were passed on to the consumers.

Opponents, largely backed by unions, said the measure allowed corporations to write their own laws, exploiting workers in order to improve their bottom lines.

Rideshare drivers and the Service Employees International Union sued the companies in January on the grounds that Prop. 22 amounts to constitutional overreach.

Plaintiffs alleged the measure makes it harder for the state legislature to exercise its authority to create and enforce a worker’s compensation program for gig economy workers; legislates more than one issue on a single ballot measure, which isn’t allowed by the California constitution; and hinders the right to self-govern with a rule that requires a seven-eighths supermajority for any changes to the legislation.

“I joined together with my fellow rideshare drivers to file an urgent challenge against Prop. 22 at the Supreme Court because we know that in a democracy, corporations shouldn’t get to write our laws,” Castellanos said. “Prop. 22 is an unconstitutional attack on the ability of the California legislature to pass any laws to protect gig workers like me, even in the middle of a deadly pandemic.”

Jim Pyatt, a Modesto-based driver speaking on behalf of the coalition that supported Prop. 22, issued a statement on Wednesday calling for opposition groups to accept the outcome of last year’s vote, calling the lawsuit “meritless.”

“We’re hopeful this will send a strong signal to special interests to stop trying to undermine the will of the voters who overwhelmingly stood with drivers to pass Proposition 22,” he said. “It’s time to respect the vast majority of California voters as well as the drivers most impacted by Prop. 22”

In its decision, the California Supreme Court said the suit could be refiled in a lower court, but the plaintiffs have not yet said if they plan to pursue that option.

Bay Area NewsCaliforniasan francisco newstechnology

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at

Just Posted

Deputy public defender Chris Garcia outside the Hall of Justice on Wednesday, June 16, 2021. (Kevin N. Hume/The Examiner)
As pandemic wanes, SF public defender hopes clients will get ‘their day in court’

Like other attorneys in San Francisco, Deputy Public Defender Chris Garcia has… Continue reading

Hyphen hosts a group show at Space Gallery in San Francisco in 2010. (Photo courtesy of Albert Law/Pork Belly Studio)
What’s in a name? Asian American magazine fights to keep its identity

An investor-backed media group laid claim to the moniker of SF’s long-running Hyphen magazine, sparking a conversation about writing over community history

A warning notice sits under the windshield wiper of a recreational vehicle belonging to a homeless man named David as it sits parked on De Wolf Street near Alemany Boulevard on Friday, Aug. 31, 2018. A proposed SF Municipal Transportation Agency law would make it illegal for overnight parking on the side street for vehicles taller than seven feet or longer than 22 feet. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
Fight over ‘poverty tows’ heats up

‘What can we do to ensure the vehicle stays in the hands of the owner?’

Crab fisherman Skip Ward of Marysville casts his crab net out off a pier near Fort Point. (Craig Lee/Special to The	Examiner)
San Francisco came back to life, and we captured it all

Last spring, in the early days of the pandemic, the bestselling authors… Continue reading

Revelers at Madrone Art Bar in the early hours of June 15, 2021 (Courtesy Power Quevedo).
No social distancing at Motown-themed dance party

‘I don’t care how anyone feels, I just want to dance!’

Most Read