` #:1813
`
`XAVIER BECERRA
`Attorney General of California
`TAMAR PACHTER
`Supervising Deputy Attorney General
`JOSE A. ZELIDON-ZEPEDA
`Deputy Attorney General
`State Bar No. 227108
`455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
`San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
`Telephone: (415) 510-3879
`Fax: (415) 703-1234
`E-mail: Jose.ZelidonZepeda@doj.ca.gov
`Attorneys for the State of California and Attorney
`General Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`LYDIA OLSON; et al.,
`
`2:19-CV-10956-DMG-RAO
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
`AND AUTHORITIES
`SUPPORTING DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`April 24, 2020
`Date:
`9:30 a.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom: 8C, 8th Floor
`Judge:
`Hon. Dolly M. Gee
`Trial Date: Not set
`Action Filed: December 30, 2019
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 55-1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 31 Page ID
` #:1814
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`B.
`
`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
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
`Background ................................................................................................................ 2
`A.
`In Dynamex, the California Supreme Court Adopted the
`ABC Test. ................................................................................... 2
`Assembly Bill 5 Codified the ABC Test to Remedy
`Widespread Misclassification of Employees as
`Independent Contractors. ............................................................ 3
`The Statutory Exemptions. ......................................................... 4
`C.
`Allegations of the Complaint......................................................6
`D.
`Legal Standard ........................................................................................................... 7
`Argument ................................................................................................................... 8
`I.
`Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Claims (Claims I and II) Fail
`Because AB 5 is rationally related to a legitimate government
`interest. .................................................................................................. 8
`A.
`The Legislature’s Interest in Protecting Exploited
`Workers to Address the Erosion of the Middle Class and
`Income Inequality Is a Rational Basis for Any Ostensible
`Targeting of Gig Economy Employers and Workers. ................ 9
`The Complaint’s Allegations of “Animus” Do Not Suffice
`to Allege Actionable Claims. .................................................... 10
`Plaintiffs’ Due Process Claims (Claims IV, V, and VIII) Fail
`because AB 5 Determines Legal Classification, Not Occupation ...... 14
`Plaintiffs’ Contract Clause Claims (Claims IX and X) Fail to
`Allege any Unconstitutional Impairment. ........................................... 16
`Plaintiffs’ Claims for Violation of The Ninth Amendment,
`“Baby Ninth,” and Inalienable Rights Provision of the California
`Constitution (Claims VI, III, and VII) Fail For Lack of
`Enforceable Rights. ............................................................................. 20
`The State of California Is Immune From Suit in Federal Court. ........ 23
`V.
`Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 23
`
`B.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 55-1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 31 Page ID
` #:1815
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc.
`765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................... 16
`
`Allen v. Bd. of Administration
`34 Cal. 3d 114 (Cal. 1983) .................................................................................. 18
`
`Amer. Law Foundation v. Meyer
`120 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 1997) ........................................................................... 22
`
`Anchorage v. Integrated Concepts & Research Corp.
`1 F. Supp. 3d 1001 (D. Alaska 2014) .................................................................... 8
`
`Angelotti Chiropractic v. Baker
`791 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................. 14
`
`Arizona Hospital & Healthcare Ass’n v. Betlach
`862 F. Supp. 2d 978 (D. Ariz. 2012) ..................................................................... 7
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .......................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`Berwick v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
`Case No. 11-46739 EK, 2015 WL 4153765 (Cal. Lab. Comm’r
`June 3, 2015) .......................................................................................................... 6
`
`Chorn v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.
`245 Cal. App. 4th 1370 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) ..................................................... 19
`
`City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Young
`2 Cal. 3d 259 (Cal. 1970) .................................................................................... 23
`
`City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.
`473 U.S. 432 (1985) .............................................................................................. 9
`
`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
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 55-1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 4 of 31 Page ID
` #:1816
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Clausing v. San Francisco Unified School Dist.
`221 Cal. App. 3d 1224 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) ....................................................... 23
`
`Page
`
`Clements v. Fashing
`457 U.S. 957 (1982) ............................................................................................ 13
`
`Coakley v. Murphy
`884 F.2d 1218 (9th Cir. 1989) ............................................................................... 8
`
`Conn v. Gabbert
`526 U.S. 286 (1999) ...................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`Cornwell v. Hamilton
`80 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (S.D. Cal. 1999) ................................................................. 16
`
`Cotter v. Lyft, Inc.
`60 F. Supp. 3d 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2015)................................................................... 6
`
`Deanco Healthcare, LLC v. Becerra
`365 F. Supp. 3d 1029 (C.D. Cal. 2019) ............................................................... 24
`
`Dittman v. California
`191 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................. 16
`
`Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
`184 F. Supp. 3d 774 (N.D. Cal. 2016)................................................................... 6
`
`Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court
`4 Cal. 5th 903 (Cal. 2018) ..................................................................... 2, 3, 10, 17
`
`Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co.
`459 U.S. 400 (1983) ................................................................................ 18, 19, 20
`
`Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric.
`478 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................... 17
`
`Erotic Serv. Provider Legal Educ. and Research Project v. Gascon
`880 F.3d 450 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................... 17
`
`FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc.
`508 U.S. 307 (1993) ........................................................................................ 9, 10
`
`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
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 55-1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 5 of 31 Page ID
` #:1817
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Franceschi v. Yee
`887 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2018) ......................................................................... 15, 17
`
`Page
`
`Gallinger v. Becerra
`898 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................. 14
`
`Gibson v. Matthews
`926 F.2d 532 (7th Cir. 1991) ............................................................................... 22
`
`Greene v. Dayton
`806 F.3d 1146 (8th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................. 20
`
`Halverson v. Skagit Cty.
`42 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................... 15
`
`Hardesty v. Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.
`307 F. Supp. 3d 1010 (E.D. Cal. 2018) ............................................................... 16
`
`Hertzberg v. Dignity Partners, Inc.
`191 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................. 14
`
`Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi
`631 F. Supp. 1153 (D. Hawaii 1986) .................................................................. 12
`
`Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter
`209 U.S. 349 (1908) ............................................................................................ 19
`
`In re Cutera Securities Litig.
`610 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................... 7
`
`In re Kelly
`841 F.2d 908 (9th Cir. 1988) ............................................................................... 14
`
`In re Monrovia Evening Post
`199 Cal. 263 (Cal. 1926) ..................................................................................... 21
`
`Leger v. Stockton Unif. Sch. Dist.
`202 Cal. App. 3d 1448 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) ....................................................... 23
`
`Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.
`220 U.S. 61 (1911) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`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
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 55-1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 6 of 31 Page ID
` #:1818
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Linton v. Desoto Cab Co., Inc.
`15 Cal. App. 5th 1208 (2017) ................................................................................ 1
`
`Page
`
`Manduley v. Super. Ct.
`27 Cal. 4th 537 (Cal. 2002) ................................................................................... 9
`
`McCarthy v. United States
`850 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1988) ................................................................................. 8
`
`Nordlinger v. Hahn
`505 U.S 1 (1992) ............................................................................................. 9, 10
`
`O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
`82 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2015)................................................................... 6
`
`Owens v. City of Signal Hill
`154 Cal. App. 3d 123 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) ......................................................... 16
`
`Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman
`465 U.S. 89 (1984) .............................................................................................. 24
`
`People v. Cruz
`207 Cal. App. 4th 664 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) ......................................................... 9
`
`People v. De La Torre
`257 Cal. App. 2d 162 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967) ......................................................... 21
`
`Real v. Driscoll Strawberry Associates, Inc.
`603 F.2d 748 (9th Cir. 1979) ............................................................................... 21
`
`RUI One Corp. v. City of Berkeley
`371 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... 9, 20
`
`S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Indus. Relations
`48 Cal. 3d 341 (Cal. 1988) ...................................................................... 1, 2, 6, 21
`
`San Diego Cty. Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno
`98 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................... 22
`
`Sanchez v. City of Reno
`914 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (E.D. Cal. 2012) ............................................................... 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
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 55-1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 7 of 31 Page ID
` #:1819
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Schowengerdt v. U.S.
`944 F.2d 483 (9th Cir. 1991) ............................................................................... 22
`
`Page
`
`Severns v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
`101 Cal. App. 4th 1209 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) ..................................................... 18
`
`Smith v. Reyes
`904 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (S.D. Cal. 2012) ................................................................. 8
`
`Strandberg v. City of Helena
`791 F.2d 744 (9th Cir. 1986) ............................................................................... 22
`
`Tieberg v. Unemployment Ins. App. Bd.
`2 Cal 3d 943 (Cal. 1970) ..................................................................................... 21
`
`Truax v. Raich
`239 U.S. 33 (1915) .............................................................................................. 16
`
`U.S. v. Ninety Three Firearms
`330 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................... 14
`
`U.S. v. Ritchie
`342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................. 8
`
`Washington Health Care Ass’n v. Arnold-Williams
`601 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (W.D. Wash. 2009) .......................................................... 18
`
`Western States Trucking Ass’n v. Schoorl
`377 F. Supp. 3d 1056 (E.D. Cal. 2019) ............................................................... 17
`
`STATUTES
`
`California Labor Code
`§ 2750.3(a)(1) .................................................................................................. 4, 10
`§ 2750.3(c) ........................................................................................................... 13
`§ 2750.3(e) ........................................................................................................... 13
`§ 3351(i) .......................................................................................................... 4, 10
`
`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
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 55-1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 8 of 31 Page ID
` #:1820
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`
`Page
`
`California Constitution
`Article I, § 9 ......................................................................................................... 18
`Article I, § 24 ....................................................................................................... 22
`Article 14, § 1 ...................................................................................................... 21
`
`United States Constitution
`Ninth Amendment ................................................................................. 2, 7, 21, 22
`Eleventh Amendment .......................................................................................... 24
`Fourteenth Amendment ................................................................................ passim
`Article I, § 10, cl. 1 ....................................................................................... passim
`
`COURT RULES
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`Rule 12(b)(1) ......................................................................................................... 8
`Rule 12(b)(6) ..................................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`California Assembly Bill
`5 ............................................................................................................................. 3
`5, § 1(c) ............................................................................................................ 3, 10
`5, § 1(e) ............................................................................................................ 4, 10
`5, § 1(g) ................................................................................................................ 17
`
`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
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 55-1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 9 of 31 Page ID
` #:1821
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In denying Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, the Court correctly
`
`held that Plaintiffs’ attacks on AB 5 fail to raise any serious questions as to the
`
`constitutionality of the law. For many of the same reasons contained in that
`
`decision, the Court should now dismiss Plaintiffs’ challenge in its entirety.
`
`To combat the ills of worker misclassification, California enacted Assembly
`
`Bill (AB) 5, which defines how employment status is determined for purposes of
`
`certain state laws. AB 5 did not create the employee/independent contractor
`
`distinction, which is both longstanding and of significance. Under California’s
`
`protective labor laws, workers have long been presumed to be employees with a
`variety of rights,1 including the minimum wage, safe working conditions, sick
`
`leave, worker’s compensation benefits if they are injured on the job, unemployment
`
`benefits if they lose their job, and disability benefits if they are disabled and cannot
`
`work. Bona fide independent contractors do not enjoy such protections.
`
`Given the difference in protections employees enjoy under the law, in
`
`enacting AB 5, the Legislature recognized that worker misclassification exploits
`
`workers, harms their families, and puts competitors who properly classify workers
`
`at a competitive disadvantage. The public good also suffers. Misclassification
`
`shifts costs from employers to taxpayers, robs the state of taxes it uses to fund the
`
`social safety net, and degrades the quality of jobs, causing more workers (and their
`
`families) to require the social safety net and contributing to income inequality.
`
`Thus, to mitigate these harms, AB 5 codified and expanded application of the
`
`simplified “ABC” test, which the California Supreme Court previously adopted in
`
`2018 after recognizing the “significant disadvantages” the then-existing generally
`
`1 See, e.g., S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, 48 Cal. 3d
`341, 349 (Cal. 1988) (“One seeking to avoid liability has the burden of proving that
`persons whose services he has retained are independent contractors rather than
`employees.”); Linton v. Desoto Cab Co., Inc., 15 Cal. App. 5th 1208, 1220-21
`(2017) (noting that Borello rebuttable presumption of employment applies to Labor
`Code “provisions falling outside workers’ compensation”).
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 55-1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 10 of 31 Page ID
` #:1822
`
`applicable multi-factor test had. See Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court, 4
`
`Cal. 5th 903, 954-55 (Cal. 2018).
`
`In this case, two corporate and two individual Plaintiffs seek to invalidate
`
`and enjoin enforcement of AB 5, alleging a lengthy list of federal and state
`
`constitutional violations. Plaintiffs claim that the law unfairly “targets” online
`
`companies, discriminates on the basis of occupation, and prevents the pursuit of a
`
`chosen occupation. None of these claims has merit. Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection,
`
`Due Process, and Contract Clause claims under the U.S. and California
`
`Constitutions fail as a matter of law for the same reasons the Court cataloged in its
`
`order denying preliminary injunctive relief. For similar reasons, Plaintiffs’ related
`
`claims under the Ninth Amendment, and the “Baby Ninth” and Inalienable Rights
`
`provision of the California Constitution also fail as a matter of law. Accordingly,
`
`the Court should dismiss the Complaint without leave to amend.
`
`BACKGROUND2
`
`A.
`
`In Dynamex, the California Supreme Court Adopted the ABC
`Test.
`
`The distinction between workers classified as employees and those classified
`
`as independent contractors is significant because California law affords employees
`
`rights that independent contractors do not enjoy. See Dynamex, 4 Cal. 5th at 912.
`
`Prior to 2018, regulatory agencies and courts used a multi-factor test enunciated in
`
`S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341
`
`(Cal. 1989) (Borello). In April 2018, the California Supreme Court held that courts
`
`must apply the ABC test, rather than Borello, to determine whether a worker is
`
`classified as an employee for certain purposes under California’s labor laws. Id. at
`
`916. Dynamex noted that the “critically important objectives” of wage and hour
`
`laws, including ensuring low income workers’ wages and conditions despite their
`
`
`2 This section is substantially drawn from Defendants’ opposition to
`Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, except section C.
`
`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
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 55-1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 11 of 31 Page ID
` #:1823
`
`weak bargaining power, “support a very broad definition of the workers” who fall
`
`within the employee classification. Dynamex, 4 Cal. 5th at 952. Similarly, a broad
`
`definition benefits “those law-abiding businesses that comply with the obligations
`
`imposed” by state labor laws, “ensuring that such responsible companies are not
`
`hurt by unfair competition from competitor businesses that utilize substandard
`
`employment practices.” Id. Lastly, the ABC test also benefits “the public at large,
`
`because if the wage orders’ obligations are not fulfilled, the public often will be left
`
`to assume the responsibility of the ill effects to workers and their families resulting
`
`from substandard wages or unhealthy and unsafe working conditions.” Id. at 953.
`
`Under the ABC test, a worker is classified as an employee, rather than an
`
`independent contractor, unless the hiring entity establishes: (a) that the worker is
`
`“free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance
`
`of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact;”
`
`(b) that the worker “performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring
`
`entity’s business;” and (c) that the worker is “customarily engaged in an
`
`independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the
`
`work performed for the hiring entity.” Id. at 916-17.
`
`B. Assembly Bill 5 Codified the ABC Test to Remedy Widespread
`Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors.
`
`On September 18, 2019, California enacted AB 5, which became effective
`
`January 1, 2020. AB 5 codified and expanded the scope of the ABC test adopted in
`
`Dynamex. The Legislature found that “[t]he misclassification of workers as
`
`independent contractors has been a significant factor in the erosion of the middle
`
`class and the rise in income inequality.” (AB 5 § 1(c).) In enacting AB 5, the
`
`Legislature intended “to ensure workers who are currently exploited by being
`
`misclassified as independent contractors instead of recognized as employees have
`
`the basic rights and protections they deserve under the law,” including minimum
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 55-1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 12 of 31 Page ID
` #:1824
`
`wage, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, paid sick leave, and paid
`
`family leave. (Id. § 1(e).)
`
`The Legislature noted that “a 2000 study commissioned by the U.S.
`
`Department of Labor found that nationally between 10% and 30% of audited
`
`employers misclassified workers,” and that a 2017 audit program by the California
`
`Employment Development Department that conducted 7,937 audits and
`
`investigations “identified nearly half a million unreported employees.” (Bill
`
`Analysis, Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment 7/5/19 at p. 2, available
`
`at
`
`https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200
`
`AB5 [last visited Feb. 12, 2020] (emphasis in original).) Misclassification, the
`
`Legislature further noted, is particularly prevalent in certain growing industries.
`
`“Recent research also supports the prevalence of misclassification and finds some
`
`of the highest misclassification rates in the economy’s growth industries, including
`
`home care, janitorial, trucking, construction, hospitality, security, and the app-based
`
`‘on demand’ sector.” (Id.)
`
`By adopting the ABC test, AB 5 “restores these important protections to
`
`potentially several million workers who have been denied these basic workplace
`
`rights that all employees are entitled to under the law.” (AB 5 § 1(e).) AB 5
`
`extends the ABC test to include (among other things) workers’ compensation,
`
`unemployment insurance, and disability insurance. Cal. Lab. Code, § 2750.3(a)(1);
`
`id. § 3351(i).
`
`C. The Statutory Exemptions.
`AB 5 also created limited statutory exemptions to the ABC test for certain
`
`occupations and industries, where the Legislature felt the ABC test was not a good
`
`fit. The Legislature considered various factors in deciding on these exemptions,
`
`including whether the individuals hold professional licenses (for example,
`
`insurance brokers, physicians and surgeons, and securities dealers). (Bill Analysis,
`
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 55-1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 13 of 31 Page ID
` #:1825
`
`Senate Committee on Labor Employment and Retirement 7/8/19 at pp. 2-3,
`
`https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200
`
`AB5 [last visited Feb. 12, 2020].) Other factors considered included whether the
`
`worker is truly free from direction or control of the hiring entity (for example,
`
`workers providing hairstyling and barbering services who have their own set of
`
`clients and set their own rates). (Id.) Still others were considered for an exemption
`
`if they perform “professional services,” as a sole proprietor or other business entity
`
`and meet specific indicia of status as independent businesses. (Id.) In its effort to
`
`identify the hallmarks of true independent contractors for purpose of exemptions
`
`from the ABC test, the Legislature also considered the bargaining power of workers
`
`in particular occupations and industries, the ability of the worker in particular
`
`occupations and industries to set their own rate of pay, and the nature of the
`
`relationship between the contractor and the client. (Id. at 8-10.)
`
`The legislative history also specifically addressed concerns about AB 5’s
`
`impact on “digital applications,” and the “gig economy,” noting that while there
`
`had been significant media attention on the issue, the bill in fact made no
`
`distinction between app-based companies and traditional businesses. (Bill
`
`Analysis, Senate Committee on Labor Employment and Retirement 7/8/19 at p. 10,
`
`https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200
`
`AB5 [last visited Feb. 12, 2020].) In discussing the exemptions, the legislature
`
`noted that the means by which a customer obtains the worker’s services are
`
`irrelevant to the worker’s status as an employee or independent contractor. (Id.)
`
`“[I]f a client secures the services of a contractor through an intermediary, it is
`
`unclear how the People of California are well served if a law makes a distinction
`
`between the intermediary being contacted through the Yellow Pages or the
`
`internet.” (Id.) Ultimately, “[t]he core question is if the intermediary is, to use the
`
`legal world as a model, deriving disproportionate benefits from the relationship.”
`
`(Id.) “A company that utilizes the independent contractor model to undercut the
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 55-1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 14 of 31 Page ID
` #:1826
`
`employer-based model to cut costs and achieve profitability or scale is a company
`
`that misclassifies its workers.” (Id.)
`
`D. Allegations of the Complaint.
`Plaintiffs Uber and Postmates (the Company Plaintiffs) operate application-
`
`based platforms to deliver transportation services to individual consumers. (ECF
`
`No. 1 at ¶¶ 32-33.) Plaintiffs Olson and Perez are individuals who use app-based
`
`platforms of Uber and Postmates “to get leads” for passenger and delivery requests.
`
`(Id. at 13 ¶¶ 30-31.) Plaintiffs challenge AB 5 as “vague” and “incoherent,” and
`
`contend that it does not further the Legislature’s goals. (Id. at 8 ¶ 19.) They argue
`
`that AB 5 requires the Company Plaintiffs to fundamentally restructure their
`
`business model, thus imposing economic, administrative and other costs. (Id. at 8-9
`
`¶ 20.)
`
`The complaint notes that AB 5 has numerous exemptions, and alleges that
`
`“[t]he legislature added these carve-outs to AB 5 solely for interest groups and
`
`labor.” (ECF No. 1 at 18 ¶ 54.) “The statutory exemptions carve out most types of
`
`workers traditionally considered to be independent contractors, with a glaring and
`
`intentional exception: app-based independent services providers.” (Id. ¶ 56.)3
`
`Plaintiffs cite alleged inconsistencies or purported irrationality in AB 5’s
`
`exemptions, and complain that the law “does not identify any data, studies, reports,
`
`or other justification or explanation for its exemptions.” (Id. at 21 ¶¶ 59-60.)
`
`3 The complaint alleges no facts supporting the conclusion that these workers
`were “traditionally considered to be independent contractors” other than a citation
`to one court decision. (Id. ¶ 55.) Indeed, the California Labor Commissioner has
`already determined that, under Borello, one of Plaintiff Uber’s drivers was
`misclassified as an independent contractor. See Berwick v. Uber Technologies,
`Inc., Case No. 11-46739 EK, 2015 WL 4153765 (Cal. Lab. Comm’r June 3, 2015).
`Moreover, multiple court decisions have rejected attempts by app-based employers
`to dismiss claims that their drivers are employees, concluding that there are
`disputed issues of fact. O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 82 F. Supp. 3d 1133,
`1138 (N.D. Cal. 2015); see also Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 184 F. Supp. 3d
`774, 783 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (in action by customers alleging sexual assault by Uber
`drivers, holding at motion to dismiss stage that plaintiffs “alleged sufficient facts
`that employment relationship may plausibly exist”); Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 60 F. Supp.
`3d 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (holding that genuine issue of material fact whether
`carrier improperly classified drivers as independent contractors).
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Document 55-1 Filed 02/13/20 Page 15 of 31 Page ID
` #:1827
`
`Plaintiffs also conclude, without alleging any facts, that “many of the exemptions
`
`[were included] as political favors or to politically favored groups without any valid
`
`legislative purpose or rational basis.” (Id. ¶ 61.)
`
`Plaintiffs allege that AB 5 violates a litany of state and federal constitutional
`
`provisions (ECF No. 1 at 35-37). “Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains 10 claims against
`
`Defendants for violation