Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 12/30/19 Page 1 of 49 Page ID #:1
`
`
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`THEANE EVANGELIS, SBN 243570
` TEvangelis@gibsondunn.com
`BLAINE H. EVANSON, SBN 254338
` BEvanson@gibsondunn.com
`HEATHER L. RICHARDSON, SBN 246517
` HRichardson@gibsondunn.com
`DHANANJAY S. MANTHRIPRAGADA,
` SBN 254433
` DManthripragada@gibsondunn.com
`333 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
`Tel.: 213.229.7000
`Fax: 213.229.7520
`
`JOSHUA S. LIPSHUTZ, SBN 242557
` JLipshutz@gibsondunn.com
`555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
`San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
`Tel.: 415.393.8200
`Fax: 415.393.8306
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Lydia Olson,
`Miguel Perez, Postmates Inc., and
`Uber Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:19-cv-10956
`COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
`FEDERAL AND CALIFORNIA
`CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,
`DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE,
`AND OTHER RELIEF
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`LYDIA OLSON; MIGUEL PEREZ;
`POSTMATES INC.; and UBER
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`STATE OF CALIFORNIA; XAVIER
`BECERRA, in his capacity as Attorney
`General of the State of California; and
`“JOHN DOE,” in his official capacity,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Lydia Olson and Miguel Perez (together, “Individual Plaintiffs”), and
`Postmates Inc. (“Postmates”) and Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) (together,
`“Company Plaintiffs”) file this Complaint for declaratory, injunctive, and other relief
`determining that California Assembly Bill 5 (“AB 5”)—a recently enacted statute that
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 12/30/19 Page 2 of 49 Page ID #:2
`
`becomes effective on January 1, 2020—is unconstitutional. AB 5 violates the Equal
`Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
`Constitution, the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Contracts
`Clause of Article I of the United States Constitution, as well as the Equal Protection
`Clause, Inalienable Rights Clause, Due Process Clause, Baby Ninth Amendment, and
`Contracts Clause of the California Constitution.
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to protect their constitutional rights and defend
`their fundamental liberty to pursue their chosen work as independent service providers
`and technology companies in the on-demand economy.
`2.
`AB 5 is an irrational and unconstitutional statute designed to target and
`stifle workers and companies in the on-demand economy.
`3.
`The on-demand economy is a free-market system in which Plaintiffs Lydia
`Olson and Miguel Perez, along with other independent service providers like them, have
`enjoyed opportunities to earn money when and where they want, with unprecedented
`independence and flexibility. These opportunities have been made possible by mobile
`applications (“apps”) operated by network companies that connect consumers requesting
`certain services with independent providers of those services. Network companies that
`operate these apps, like Company Plaintiffs, are sometimes referred to as “app-based
`platforms,” “network companies,” or “platform companies.” Those independent service
`providers who find their customers using the network companies’ mobile apps may be
`referred to as “app-based independent service providers,” performing “on-demand
`work.”
`4.
`Plaintiffs Olson and Perez choose to work as independent service providers
`in the modern app-based on-demand economy as a means of earning a substantial or
`supplementary income while maintaining the right to decide when, where, and how they
`work. In fact, hundreds of thousands of Californians choose to provide these services—
`such as providing transportation to a passenger or delivering food, groceries, and other
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 12/30/19 Page 3 of 49 Page ID #:3
`
`goods—and enjoy an unprecedented level of flexibility and freedom without the
`restrictions, limitations, and burdens of traditional employment.
`5.
`Such independent service providers like Individual Plaintiffs are able “to
`integrate work into their existing lifestyles, to manage it along with other work, and to
`assemble what amounts to a form of income insurance,” thereby gaining the ability “to
`create their own financial stability.”1 For example, Plaintiff Olson uses on-demand work
`to supplement her primary income while still ensuring that she can always care for her
`husband, who has multiple sclerosis, whenever he needs her. Plaintiff Perez uses on-
`demand work more regularly to earn a more substantial income than he previously did
`as a trucker, while still making it to all of his son’s little league games. Other fathers
`too choose app-based on-demand referrals for the flexibility to work around children’s
`soccer games or ballet performances. An aspiring comedian might choose to perform
`transportation services referred through an app so that she can attend an audition without
`checking with her boss. A student might choose to use a delivery platform for referrals
`to earn money between classes. A retiree might use an app’s referrals to supplement
`fixed income and for social interaction. A military spouse might choose to work in the
`on-demand economy to help ease the burdens of frequent relocation. Others might
`choose it as a way to supplement “traditional” full-time work or to bridge the gap
`between salaried positions.2 In short, these independent workers can work as much, or
`as little, as they want in order to accommodate family, social, professional, academic,
`and other commitments.3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`1 Intuit and Emergent Research, Dispatches from the New Economy: The On-Demand
`Economy Worker Study, at 4-5, June 2017, https://fdocuments.us/document/
`dispatches-from-the-new-economy-the-on-the-underlying-dynamics-affecting-
`the.html.
`2 AB 5’s principal sponsor has indicated that the law was specifically designed to
`address people who have a full-time job and choose to supplement their income with
`side work. @LorenaSGonzalez, Twitter (Dec. 19, 2019, 6:29 AM), https://twitter.
`com/LorenaSGonzalez/status/1207669238481092610 (AB 5 “was in response to
`people who have a job but have to work side hustles”).
`3 For many other examples of the flexibility afforded by on-demand work, see
`O’Connor v. Uber Techs. Inc., No. CV-13-03826-EMC (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2015)
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 12/30/19 Page 4 of 49 Page ID #:4
`
`
`6.
`Because app-based work empowers individuals to generate income on a
`flexible schedule, “[m]any people choose this mode of work, even when they have other
`options.”4 Even with record low levels of unemployment, hundreds of thousands of
`Californians are flocking to on-demand work. Instead of a daily commute, an outdated
`workplace hierarchy, and the daily grind of an inflexible 9-to-5 job, these workers enjoy
`the freedom to be their own bosses, set their own hours, and earn income whenever they
`want. Many such workers also choose to “multi-app”—i.e., simultaneously use the apps
`of several app-based network companies. By using multiple apps at the same time—
`e.g., Uber, Postmates, Grubhub, and DoorDash—independent service providers can
`more easily find service requests to perform, including multiple service requests at the
`same time, thereby maximizing their potential for earnings during the time period that
`they choose to make themselves available. Plaintiffs Olson and Perez both regularly
`multi-app to increase convenience and enhance their earnings.
`7.
`Plaintiff Olson holds an MBA from the University of California, Davis, and
`was employed in several management positions before becoming an independent
`business owner in 2011. She runs a consulting firm that works with small businesses
`and churches. Shortly after Ms. Olson started her consulting business, her husband was
`diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and she was grateful that, as an independent business
`owner, she had the flexibility to take time off to care for him when needed. In addition
`to her consulting work, Ms. Olson began using the Uber and Lyft apps for driving
`referrals to supplement her primary income while still maintaining the flexibility to
`support her husband. Given her husband’s illness and the fact that she has little or no
`notice of when she will have to take time off to care for him, as well as her consulting
`business, Ms. Olson could not give up the flexibility that she has as an independent
`service provider in exchange for a more traditional work arrangement.
`
`
`(Dkt. 307); Evangelis Declaration Exhibits 1–40, O’Connor v. Uber Techs. Inc., No.
`CV-13-03826-EMC (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2015) (Dkt. 299).
`4 Intuit and Emergent Research, supra note 1, at 3.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 12/30/19 Page 5 of 49 Page ID #:5
`
`
`8.
`Plaintiff Perez likewise has relied on the freedom and flexibility he has as
`an independent contractor to support his family. He once drove a big rig as a
`commercial, class A truck driver for FedEx on a regular graveyard shift. He disliked the
`inflexible schedule and long hours because of how little time he got to spend with his
`wife and children, and he found that he was constantly getting injured on the graveyard
`shift. Mr. Perez’s dissatisfaction led him to look for other work, and he decided to
`experiment with running his own on-demand business on his own terms by accepting
`referrals for consumers looking for rides or deliveries from several on-demand apps.
`Now running his own delivery business, Mr. Perez gets to decide when he starts work
`and when he stops. He is able to be his own boss and tailor his work to be present for
`all the important life events for his children. And he has nearly doubled his earnings
`from when he was a truck driver, allowing his wife to quit her job and spend more time
`with their daughter.
`9.
`Individual Plaintiffs experience these benefits from on-demand work as
`tangible and central to their and their families’ well-being and quality of life; these
`benefits represent foundational and critical gains that they realize every day from being
`their own bosses.
`10. The app-based on-demand economy also has benefited consumers. The
`advanced technologies of app-based network companies like Company Plaintiffs have
`reduced the costs associated with finding and hiring independent service providers,
`eliminated barriers to enter markets with high initial setup costs, increased convenience
`for independent service providers and consumers, and lowered prices for numerous
`services by making it easy to connect independent service providers directly with paying
`consumers. As a result, consumers “have flocked to these networked services because
`of the added convenience, lower prices, and higher quality services.”5 Millions of
`
`
`5 Will Rinehart, The Modern Online Gig Economy, Consumer Benefits, and the
`Importance of Regulatory Humility, American Action Forum (Nov. 19, 2015),
`https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-modern-online-gig-economy-
`consumer-benefit-and-the-importance-of-regula/.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 12/30/19 Page 6 of 49 Page ID #:6
`
`California consumers and brick and mortar businesses, and the state’s economy as a
`whole, have benefited from the services of these independent service providers and the
`on-demand economy.
`11. Some of the many benefits to consumers, small businesses, and the public
`the on-demand economy
`include providing convenient and affordable
`from
`transportation, reducing impaired and drunk driving, improving mobility and access to
`local merchants for seniors and individuals with disabilities, providing new
`transportation options for families who cannot afford a vehicle, fostering growth of small
`businesses that are able to reach a broader market, and providing new, affordable, and
`convenient consumer-outreach options for local businesses and their patrons.
`12. These benefits to workers, consumers, merchants, and the public as a whole
`have been fueled by technology companies, like Company Plaintiffs, creating and
`operating websites, apps, and other technologies that instantly connect independent
`service providers willing to perform a service with consumers willing to pay for the
`service. For example, among other apps, Plaintiff Uber operates an app-based platform
`that connects consumers looking for a ride with drivers looking for such riders. Plaintiff
`Postmates operates an app-based platform that connects (i) consumers wishing to
`purchase goods (such as food) with (ii) merchants and (iii) independent couriers willing
`to deliver the purchased goods. Other network companies operate online platforms that
`match independent service providers with persons willing to pay someone to perform
`any multitude of other services.
`13.
`Importantly, the only service that network companies provide is access to
`an app. Neither Company Plaintiff hires drivers or delivery persons. They are
`technology companies that create and operate apps, which facilitate the connection of
`consumers and independent service providers, so that consumers can hire an independent
`service provider to perform particular services.
`14. Network companies have been an engine of economic growth, innovation,
`and work opportunities in California, across the country, and around the world.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 12/30/19 Page 7 of 49 Page ID #:7
`
`
`15. Rather than embrace how the on-demand economy has empowered
`workers, benefited consumers, and fueled economic growth, some California legislators
`have irrationally attacked it. California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, in
`particular, published an Op-Ed in the Washington Post in September 2019 unfairly
`attacking on-demand work, Uber, and other network companies.6
`16. This hostility towards the on-demand economy held by Assemblywoman
`Gonzalez and many of her colleagues in the California legislature ultimately led to the
`passage of AB 5. Assemblywoman Gonzalez was the lead drafter, sponsor, and
`proponent of the bill. The California legislature passed AB 5 on September 11, 2019; it
`was signed into law on September 18, 2019; and it is scheduled to take effect on January
`1, 2020.
`17. Assemblywoman Gonzalez and other legislators who voted for AB 5 have
`publicly and repeatedly stated that their purpose in supporting the statute is to force
`network companies to change the classification of workers who use their technology
`from “independent contractors” to “employees” and thus restructure their businesses. In
`other words, their goal is to deprive workers of the flexibility and freedom of their
`current independent status, and instead place them under the authority, control, and
`direction of an employer.
`18. This overt hostility to on-demand work has manifested in Assemblywoman
`Gonzalez’s request that executive officials unfairly, and with overt bias, use the law to
`target network companies for immediate enforcement actions. She explicitly added
`authorization for the City Attorneys of California’s largest cities to bring enforcement
`actions under AB 5 against Company Plaintiffs.7 And she has repeatedly encouraged
`
`
`6 Lorena Gonzalez, The Gig Economy Has Costs. We Can No Longer Ignore Them,
`Wash. Post (Sept. 11, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/11/
`gig-economy-has-costs- we-can-no-longer-ignore-them/.
`7 Carolyn Said, Uber: We’ll Fight in Court to Keep Drivers as Independent
`Contractors, San Francisco Chronicle (Sept. 11, 2019), https://www.sfchronicle.
`com/business/article/Uber-We-ll-fight-in-court-to-keep-drivers-as-14432241.php
`(“Uber’s attitude spurred Gonzalez to add a last-minute provision to AB 5 allowing
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 12/30/19 Page 8 of 49 Page ID #:8
`
`immediate enforcement actions against network companies.8 At least one such City
`Attorney also publicly stated support for this expansion of enforcement authority under
`AB 5 and expressed his intent to use this authority “to do the job” directed by
`Assemblywoman Gonzalez.9 Other state and city officials have similarly stated their
`intent to bring enforcement actions against network companies, including Company
`Plaintiffs.
`19. AB 5 is a vague and incoherent statute that does not accomplish what its
`sponsors have stated they sought to achieve. Company Plaintiffs maintain that (among
`other things) they are not hiring entities under AB 5 and can establish that app-based
`independent service providers are not employees under the ABC test.10
`20. But if the enforcers of AB 5—such as Defendants, executive officials, or
`the four city attorneys whom AB 5 purports to deputize into enforcers of state law—
`were to succeed in carrying out the intent of AB 5’s sponsors, this would deprive
`independent service providers such as Individual Plaintiffs of the flexibility they so value
`working in the on-demand economy. And it would impose economic, administrative,
`and other costs on platform companies such as Company Plaintiffs by requiring them to
`
`the state attorney general, city attorneys of cities with populations of over 750,000,
`and local prosecutors to sue companies that misclassify workers, she said.”).
`8 @LorenaSGonzalez, Twitter (Nov. 21, 2019, 8:05 AM), https://twitter.com/
`LorenaSGonzalez/status/1197546573158158336?s=20.
`9 Said, supra note 7 (quoting statement of San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera
`on AB 5’s inclusion of enforcement authority for city attorneys and touting “his
`record of taking on cases about worker pay and benefits,” including having “already
`filed several cases against Uber and Lyft”).
`10 In arbitrations in California and New York, Company Plaintiffs have prevailed in
`establishing that the independent service providers who use their platforms are not
`employees under the “ABC test.” The federal government has likewise concluded
`that independent service providers are not employees under the Federal Labor
`Standards Act or the National Labor Relations Act. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Wage &
`Hour Div., Opinion Letter FLSA2019-6 (Apr. 29, 2019) (recognizing that app-based
`on-demand workers are “independent contractors” under the Fair Labor Standards
`Act); Advice Memorandum from Jayme L. Sophir, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Div. of
`Advice, Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. to Jill Coffman, Reg’l Dir., Region 20, Nat’l Labor
`Relations Bd. 15 (Apr. 16, 2019) (concluding that UberX and UberBLACK drivers
`are independent contractors under the National Labor Relations Act). Nothing in this
`Complaint should be read to waive or forfeit any argument Company Plaintiffs would
`make in an enforcement action brought against them under AB 5.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 12/30/19 Page 9 of 49 Page ID #:9
`
`fundamentally restructure their business models. If found to have violated AB 5,
`Company Plaintiffs could be subject to civil penalties and even criminal punishment.
`For some companies, the burdens of restructuring their businesses and the potential
`penalties from the threatened enforcement of AB 5 could force them to stop doing
`business in California.
`21.
`If AB 5 were enforced against Company Plaintiffs in a manner consistent
`with the sponsors’ stated intent to require reclassification of workers in the on-demand
`economy, it would harm many independent service providers who prefer to provide
`services on their own schedules via the app-based platforms that network companies
`operate. Inevitably, forced reclassification would eliminate the flexibility and
`entrepreneurship that is the foundation of platform-based work. And that, in turn, would
`reduce the number of people who are able to earn money via on-demand work. “[A]
`lucky few will secure full-time jobs,” but the rest will be forced “right out of a stable
`income stream.”11 For example, according to one study, requiring rideshare company
`Lyft to reclassify its drivers as employees and to adopt formal work schedules for those
`new employees would lead to more than 300,000 fewer drivers in California.12 The
`displacement of hundreds of thousands of workers who rely on the current arrangement
`and for whom the performance of this work is possible only if they maintain agency over
`the conditions in which they choose to do this work would cause them irreparable injury.
`22. AB 5 has already forced one company to terminate entirely its relationship
`with hundreds of independent service providers with only a lucky few receiving
`positions as employees.13 Other companies are replacing independent service providers
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`11 Bonnie Kristian, How California’s New Gig Economy Law Could Put Freelancers
`Out of Business (Oct. 24, 2019), https://theweek.com/articles/873453/how-
`californias-new-gig-economy-law-could-freelancers-business.
`12 Beacon Economics LLC, How Many Drivers Would Lyft Recruit Under a Traditional
`Work Arrangement? An Analysis, at 2, Aug. 2019, https://images.kusi.com/wp-
`content/uploads/2019/09/Beacon-Economics-August-2019.pdf.
` 13 See, e.g., Carlos Garcia, Vox Media Fires Hundreds of Freelance Writers Over
`California ‘Gig Economy’ Law—And They’re Tweeting Angrily About It (Dec. 16,
`2019), https://www.theblaze.com/news/ca-gig-economy-law-gets-writers-fired.
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 12/30/19 Page 10 of 49 Page ID #:10
`
`in California with workers from out of state as a result of AB 5.14 And at least two
`lawsuits have already been filed seeking to enjoin and invalidate AB 5 as
`unconstitutional and/or preempted by federal law.15
`23.
`In a thinly veiled attempt to conceal their irrational intent to target and harm
`network companies, legislators framed the statute as merely codifying the three-prong
`worker classification test from Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los
`Angeles, 416 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2018). But the statute does much more than that. Dynamex
`adopted an “ABC test” to determine whether a worker is an employee, not an
`independent contractor, for purposes of California’s wage orders, which are “quasi-
`legislative regulations” that “impose obligations relating to the minimum wages,
`maximum hours, and a limited number of very basic working conditions (such as
`minimally required meal and rest breaks) of California employees.” Id. at 5 & n.3. AB
`5 goes much further, and codifies the ABC test for not only wage orders but also for the
`California Unemployment Insurance Code and the entirety of the California Labor Code.
`It also attaches the threat of criminal sanctions by making misclassification a
`misdemeanor or even a felony under California law pursuant to penalties provided for
`in the existing Labor Code.16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`14 See, e.g., Jeff Lasky, Concerns Raised As California’s Independent Contractor Law
`Is Set To Take Effect, ABC10 News (Dec. 27, 2019), https://www.10news.com/
`news/local-news/questions-and-concerns-from-workers-with-controversial-
`independent-contractor-law-about-to-take-affect.
` 15 See, e.g., Complaint, Am. Society of Journalists and Authors, Inc. v. Becerra, No.
`2:19-cv-10645 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2019).
` 16 The California Labor Code requires employers to provide numerous benefits to their
`employees, including minimum wage (Cal. Lab. Code § 1194 (West 2019)); overtime
`compensation (id.); indemnification for business expenses (id. § 2802); meal and rest
`periods (id. § 226.7); and workers’ compensation (id. § 3700). Under the Labor
`Code, employers are subject to criminal and civil liability for numerous violations,
`including violation of provisions related to overtime, meal periods, alternative
`workweeks, makeup work time, and rest days (see, e.g., id. § 553); failing to pay
`minimum wage (id. § 1199); failing to comply with various wage withholding
`provisions (id. § 225); failing to comply with itemized paystub requirements (id.
`§ 226.6); and failing to make required payments to a health or welfare fund, pension
`fund, vacation plan, or similar benefit fund (id. § 227).
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 12/30/19 Page 11 of 49 Page ID #:11
`
`
`24. The irrationality of AB 5 is confirmed by its laundry list of exemptions.
`AB 5 spends only a few lines of text adopting the ABC test. The vast majority of the
`statute is a list of exemptions that carve out of the statutory scope dozens of occupations,
`including direct salespeople, travel agents, grant writers, construction truck drivers,
`commercial fisherman, and many more. There is no rhyme or reason to these
`nonsensical exemptions, and some are so ill-defined or entirely undefined that it is
`impossible to discern what they include or exclude. For example, some types of workers
`are excluded (e.g., a delivery truck driver delivering milk) while others performing
`substantively identical work are not excluded (e.g., a delivery truck driver delivering
`juice). The statute exempts “Professional service providers . . . [such as] fine artist
`services” (AB 5 § 2(c)(2)(B)(i)-(xi)), but does not define “fine artist services,” leaving
`individuals guessing whether or not they qualify for the exemption at great financial risk.
`Nor is there any rational reason why an individual who chooses to earn income by direct
`selling Tupperware is exempt, and yet, if that same person earns extra income by
`offering driving services, there is no exemption.
`25. This targeting of app-based workers and platforms and treating them
`disparately from traditional workers violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United
`States and California Constitutions. There is simply no rational basis for subjecting
`exempt occupations and non-exempt occupations to different rules and burdens. Where,
`as here, the breadth of a statute is so disjointed with the reasons offered for it that the
`statute seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it is designed to
`affect, the statute lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests and violates
`equal protection. And where, as here, there does not appear any reason why the
`California legislature would choose those carve-outs other than to respond to the
`demands of political constituents, the law is unconstitutional even under the most
`minimal “rational basis” standard of judicial review.
`26. And to the extent AB 5 is enforced against on-demand workers and
`companies in a manner consistent with the sponsors’ stated intent to require
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 12/30/19 Page 12 of 49 Page ID #:12
`
`reclassification of workers in the on-demand economy, AB 5 violates the inalienable
`rights and due process clauses of the California Constitution, as well as the Fourteenth
`Amendment to the United States Constitution. App-based independent service providers
`and the companies that operate the platforms they use have a constitutional right to
`pursue the occupation of their choice—not to be forced to be employees when they are
`independent, or to be forced to be taxi or delivery companies when they are technology
`companies. And platform companies have a constitutionally protected interest in
`running their businesses free from unreasonable governmental interference, including
`statutes that irrationally classify and target them as a politically disfavored group.
`27.
`In addition, if enforced against independent service providers like
`Individual Plaintiffs and network companies such as Company Plaintiffs in a manner
`consistent with the sponsors’ stated intent to require reclassification of workers in the
`on-demand economy, AB 5 also would violate the Contracts Clauses of the United States
`and California Constitutions. The on-demand economy is built upon a structure of
`contracts in which consumers are connected via apps with independent service
`providers, not employees. See, e.g., Lawson v. Grubhub Inc., 302 F. Supp. 3d 1071,
`1093 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (holding that a driver who used the Grubhub platform to perform
`deliveries is an “independent contractor” under California law); cf. U.S. Dep’t of Labor,
`Wage & Hour Div., Opinion Letter FLSA2019-6 (Apr. 29, 2019) (recognizing that app-
`based independent service providers are “independent contractors” under the Fair Labor
`Standards Act); Advice Memorandum from Jayme L. Sophir, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Div.
`of Advice, Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. to Jill Coffman, Reg’l Dir., Region 20, Nat’l Labor
`Relations Bd. 15 (Apr. 16, 2019) (concluding that UberX and UberBLACK drivers are
`independent contractors under the National Labor Relations Act). Company Plaintiffs
`have entered into millions of contracts with independent service providers (including
`with Individual Plaintiffs), and millions of contracts with users of their apps, in reliance
`on the pre-AB 5 framework. If Defendants are able to use the threat of enforcement of
`AB 5 to force Company Plaintiffs to reclassify independent service providers as
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 1 Filed 12/30/19 Page 13 of 49 Page ID #:13
`
`employees (even if these workers are correctly classified as independent contractors),
`that would completely upend this entire contractual landscape, and—at the very least—
`substantially impair the existing contractual relationships, rendering many of them
`invalid, and forcing Company Plaintiffs to enter into new contracts with dramatically
`different obligations. There is no significant and legitimate public purpose—only
`irrational animus—for this legislative attempt to incite enforcement of AB 5 against
`network companies in a manner that would impair preexisting contracts, and harm
`network companies and independent service providers alike.
`28. Plaintiffs support the goal of protecting workers and clarifying California’s
`rules surrounding worker classification, but singling out network companies and
`subjecting them to different rules is an improper, ineffectual, and unconstitutional means
`of furthering that objective. It irreparably harms network companies and app-based
`independent service providers by denying their constitutional rights to be treated the
`same as others to whom they are similarly situated. These and other adverse
`consequences also would undermine the public’s interest in having access to the app-
`based platforms that network companies have created, with the attendant benefits of
`being able to hire independent service providers on demand with the click of a button.
`29. For these reasons, the Court should declare that AB 5 is unconstitutional
`and invalid, and preliminarily and permanently enjoin all enforcement of AB 5 against
`Company Plaintiffs.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`PARTIES
`30. Plaintiff Lydia Olson is a d