(OCDNODU'I-hOONA
`
`NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA00\lOTC”J>(:0N—\OCOCDNCD(J14300N—\O
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-98001FX(415)434-0513|www.rez|aw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFFV&LOWELLP
`
`XVAN3
`
`Eh
`
`(ta
`
`" NOSUMMONS ISSUED
`
`DAVID A. LOWE (SBN: 178.811)
`Email: dal@rezlaw.com
`JOHN T. MULLAN (SBN: 221149)
`Email: jtm@rezlaw.com
`MICHELLE G. LEE (SBN: 266167)
`Email: mgl@rezlaw.com
`MEGHAN F. LOISEL (SBN: 291400)
`Email: mfl@rezlaw.com
`WILLIAM F. McELHINNY (SBN 296259)
`Email: wpm@rezlaw.com
`RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP
`351 California Street, Suite 700
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 434-9800
`Facsimile: (415) 434-0513
`
`ILED
`erior Coun of'CaIitornia
`Sagunty of San Franmsco
`
`0131 22mm»
`
`
`
`GEORGE A. WARNER (SBN: 320241)
`Email: gwarner@legalaidatwork.org
`KIMBERLY OUILLETTE (SBN: 326562)
`Email: kouillette@legalaidatwork.org
`LEGAL AID AT WORK
`
`180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 864-8848
`Facsimile: (415) 593-0096
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`Benjamin Valdez, Hector Castellanos,
`Worksafe, and Chinese Progressive Association
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`Case No.
`
`EGG-20°587266
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`BENJAMIN VALDEZ, HECTOR
`CASTELLANOS, WORKSAFE, AND
`CHINESE PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
`corporation; UBER USA, LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company; RASIER, LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company; and
`RASIER—CA, LLC, a Delaware limited
`liability company,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`CASE NO.
`
`I
`
`

`

`0
`
`g
`
`_\
`
`OCOQVO‘JUTAQJN
`
`NNN[\J[\JN-NNN._\._\._\_x_\_\_.\_\_\_xCD\I0)U1#-00N—¥O(0CD\ICD01L03N—-¥
`
`Plaintiffs Benjamin Valdez, Hector Castellanos, Worksafe, and Chinese Progressive
`
`Association (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Defendants Uber Technologies,
`
`Inc.; Uber USA, LLC; Rasier, LLC; and Rasier-CA, LLC (collectively, “Uber” or “Defendants”)
`
`and allege as follows based upon personal experience and the investigation of counsel:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an individual and class action for injunctive relief brought by two
`
`California non-profit organizations dedicated to protecting workplace rights — Worksafe and
`
`Chinese Progressive Association — and Benjamin Valdez and Hector Castellanos, Uber ride-share
`
`drivers, on behalf of themselves and a class of all similarly situated California Uber drivers, each
`
`of whom Uber has unlawfully pressured to support its Yes on Prop 22 campaign — an effort
`
`funded by Uber,Lyft, Instacart, and DoorDash with the goal of stripping gig economy workers
`
`like Valdez and Castellanos of their rights as employees under the California Labor Code and
`
`Industrial Commission Wage Orders.
`2.
`I Since at least 1915, California has prohibited employers from pressuring,
`
`coercing, or otherwise interfering with their employees’ right to engage in, or refrain from
`
`engaging in, political activities, including the employees’ rights as Californians to vote for or
`
`against political candidates and ballot initiative measures. As presently codified, Labor Code
`
`§ 1101 expressly forbids employers from exploiting their economic power by “controlling or
`
`directing” the political activities of their employees, and Labor Code § 1102 forbids employers
`
`from using the threat of discharge or loss of employment to coerce, or attempt to coerce or
`influence any employee’s free choice regarding whether to engage or refrain from engaging in
`
`“any partiCular course or line of political action or political activity.”
`
`Despite California’s longstanding prohibitions against employer interference with
`3. .
`the political rights and freedoms oftheir employees, Uber has taken advantage of its raw
`
`economic power and its exclusive control over communications through its driver—scheduling app
`by wrongfully pressuring its drivers to actively support Proposition 22. Uber has not only
`
`directed its drivers to vote for Proposition 22, but has also asked them to support the Yes on
`
`Prop 22 campaign by submitting Video messages and statements that conform to Uber’s political
`
`1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-98001FX(415)434-0513|www.rezIaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET.SUITE700
`
`

`

`C
`
`-
`
`at
`
`_L
`
`OOCDNOGAOJN
`
`position and by pressuring the drivers to submit statements of support for Proposition 22 and to
`
`respond to surveys regarding their voting preferences by stating they support Prop 22. Uber’s
`
`solicitations have the purpose and effect of causing drivers to fear retaliation by Uber if they do
`
`not support Uber’s political preference and may induce many drivers to falsely state that they
`
`support being deprived of the rights that California law guarantees to statutory “employees.”
`
`Despite the intentionally skewed survey results obtained by Uber through the wrongful conduct
`
`alleged herein, Uber’s ongoing statewide campaign makes the misleading claim that drivers
`
`support Proposition 22.
`
`4.
`
`Although Uber has long misclassified its drivers as independent contractors rather
`
`than employees, recent court decisions have made clear that those drivers (the plaintiff class
`
`members in this lawsuit) are — and have always been — employees under California law. That-
`
`was true before the enactment of Assembly Bill 5 (“AB 5”) in 2019 and even before the
`
`California Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior
`
`Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, which AB 5 codified; and it is certainly true now, as most recently
`
`confirmed by Judge Ethan Schulman in People v. Uber Technologies, San Francisco Superior
`
`Court Case No. CGC—20—5 84402 (appeal pending No. Al60706). Nonetheless, in a coldly
`
`calculated self-interested effort to avoid the costs of complying with state law—including but not
`
`limited to complying with obligations to pay minimum wage and overtime wages, to provide
`
`meal and rest periods, to reimburse work expenses, and to pay unemployment insurance,
`
`workers’ compensation, and other taxes that California law requires from employers—Uber,
`
`joined by such other prominent gig economy employers as Lyft, Instacart, and DoorDash, have
`
`poured close to two hundred million dollars into their campaign to enact Proposition 22, a ballot
`
`initiative that would overrule AB 5, Dynamex, and the underlying protections for plaintiffs and
`
`class members under the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders.
`
`5.
`
`This case challenges Uber’s wrongful efforts to dictate to its drivers — a captive
`
`audience whose members are economically dependent on Uber for their jobs, their pay, and for
`
`the timely, favorable, and plentiful ride—sharing assignments that Uber can provide — how they
`
`should vote in the upcoming election and what they should do to support Uber’s Yes on Prop 22
`
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434-0513|www.rez|aw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO.CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`

`

`O
`
`.
`
`40
`
`.—\
`
`O‘COWNO50'!h(.0N
`
`_\_x_\_\_L
`
`#CIONA
`
`_\ (J1
`
`_\ O)
`
`66:i‘
`
`MNNNNNNM‘A\Ioumth—xoco
`
`N (I)
`
`campaign. Through public comments and extensive, repeated messaging that is triggered every
`
`time a driver logs on to Uber’s mandatory driver app, Uber has threatened plaintiffs and class
`
`members that if they do not support Uber’s political efforts regarding Proposition 22, those
`
`drivers will lose their jobs or suffer other adverse work-related consequences. Uber’s threats do
`
`not rest upon accurate, factual information. Rather, the messaging Uber is using to coerce those
`
`drivers’ votes and to obtain those drivers’ material support for the Yes on Prop 22'campaign (in ,
`
`the form of positive survey responses and written and videotaped statements in support of the
`
`Yes on Prop 22 campaign) rests on a series of knowingly false statements and misrepresentations
`
`and implicit threats of retaliation against non-supporters, all of which are designed to increase the
`
`wrongful pressure on those drivers to bend to Uber’s corporate will.
`
`6.
`
`First, Uber makes a series of factually unfounded assertions that its California
`
`drivers will lose their jobs unless Proposition 22 passes. At times, Uber threatens that unless
`
`Proposition 22 passes, Uber will cease all California operations, even though Uber knows that it
`
`could continue to operate in California with drivers who are properly classified as employees. At
`
`other times, Uber inconsistently threatens that unless Proposition 22 passes, Uber will cut its
`
`driver workforce in California by 70 percent, or fire everyone and rehire some. As a result,
`drivers reasonably believe that if they want to be among the 30 percent of drivers who are either
`retained or rehired as employees, they must have affirmatively supported Uber’s Yes on Prop 22 A
`
`campaign by preparing videotaped and written messages of support and “correctly” answering
`
`Uber’s survey questions. These threats are doubly unlawful. First, these threats mislead
`
`employees by stating that an across-the-board layoff and minimal rehire policy would be the
`
`inevitable, immutable consequence of its drivers’ failure to conform to Uber’s political mandate.
`
`These threats send a clear message that the only drivers who will have a chance ofregaining
`
`employment if Proposition 22 passes are those who have curried favor with Uber by actively
`
`supporting its campaign.
`
`7.
`
`-
`
`Second, Uber’s captive-audience communications to its drivers falsely state what
`
`the consequences would be to its drivers if Proposition 22 passes. Uber warns its drivers that, to
`
`the extent they might still have jobs after Proposition 22 passes (i.e., if they are re-hired after
`
`3
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800IFX(415)434-0513]www.rez|aw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`

`

`o,
`
`‘0.
`
`—L
`
`OCOGJNCDm-th
`NNNNN_\_x_x_x_x_\_x_x.—s_\hOJN—‘OCOGJNOUCh-thA
`
`N 01
`
`NNNGNU)
`
`being laid off), they will lose scheduling flexibility, their earnings will be limited, they will be
`
`barred from using other ride-sharing apps, and they will be forced to accept rides with poorly
`
`rated riders. Again, although Uber presents these scenarios as an immutable consequence of
`
`Proposition 22’s enactment, there is no legal reason why Uber could not operate with a
`
`workforce of employees protected by the California Labor Code and Wage Orders like any other -
`
`employer — such as taxi companies.
`
`8.
`
`Third, Uber falsely states what the'supposed benefits to its drivers would be if
`
`Proposition 22 passes and Uber is permitted to classify drivers as independent contractors. For
`
`example, Uber asserts that the drivers would be entitled to a guaranteed minimum income of
`
`120% of the California minimum wage, but fails to disclose that this supposed guarantee only
`
`applies to hours in which they are engaged by an Uber rider and not to other time under Uberfs
`
`control which, under well-established California law, constitutes “work” time for which those
`
`employees are entitled to be compensated.
`
`9.
`
`It is a bedrock principle of our democracy that all persons should be free to engage
`
`in, or refrain from, political activity without coercion. This principle has been codified in
`
`California law for more than a century, and it reflects the Legislature’s recognition in Sections
`
`1101 and 1102 of the Labor Code that employers have the inherent power to wield enormous
`coercive control over their employees, creating the risk that absent protective legislation,
`
`unscrupulous employers might “misuse their economic power to interfere with the political
`
`activities of their employees.” (Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. C0. (1979) 24 Cal.
`
`3d 463, 487.) To protect workers from employers seeking to exploit that power for political
`
`advantage, the Legislature enacted those statutes using the broadest possible language to describe
`
`the range of political activities to which its prohibitions apply. “These statutes cannot be
`
`narrowly confined to partisan activity.” (Id. at 487.) “The term ‘political activity’” is broad
`
`enough to include “the espousal of .
`
`.
`
`. a cause,” and recognizes “the political character of
`
`activities such as .
`
`.
`
`. the association with others for the advancement of beliefs and ideas.”
`
`(Ibicl)
`
`///
`
`I
`
`4
`CLAss ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434-0513|www.rez|aw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`

`

`’
`
`J
`
`-
`
`OOCDVQU'l-hOON—K
`NNNNNNNNN—l—lAA—LAA—AAAoofloucnth—xocoooxlmmth—x
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
`
`situated, to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief to stop Uber’s unlawful and harmful practices,
`which subvert its employees’ political freedom and the democratic process. Plaintiffs’ claims are
`
`brought under California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102, and the Unfair Competition law.
`
`Plaintiffs have also submitted a PAGA notice to the LWDA and are in the process of exhausting
`
`the administrative process as a first step toward recovering the civil penalties made available to
`
`all aggrieved employees and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency
`
`(“LWDA”) under PAGA, Labor Code § 2689 et seq. If the LWDA declines to pursue those
`
`penalties itself, Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to add a PAGA claim.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the claims raised in this Complaint and is the
`
`proper venue pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 395.5, 410.10 for the following
`
`reasons:
`
`(i) Defendants maintain their headquarters in San Francisco County; (ii) Defendants
`
`regularly operate, advertise, market, and/or employ drivers in San Francisco County and
`
`throughout the State of California; and (iii) a substantial portion of the underlying transactions
`
`and events complained of herein occurred, and affected persons and entities reside, in San
`
`Francisco County.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Valdez properly exercised his right to opt out of Uber’s forced arbitration
`
`requirement, although because he seeks public injunctive relief to enjoin Uber’s ongoing
`Violations of Labor Code sections 1011 and 1012. Valdez and Castellanos would be permitted to
`
`pursue the relief sought herein even if he were subject to an otherwise binding Uber arbitration
`
`agreement because they are primarily seeking a public injunction and because Uber’s arbitration
`
`agreements prohibit drivers from seeking relief that benefits anyone other than themselves.
`
`III.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Benjamin Valdez is a citizen of California, residing in Los Angeles,
`
`California. Valdez has worked for Uber as a driver from approximately August 2015 to the
`
`present. Plaintiff Valdez validly opted out of Defendants’ arbitration policy.
`
`M
`
`V
`
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800]FX(415)434-0513|www.rezlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO.CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET.SUITE700
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800[FX(415)434—0513|www.rez|aw.com
`
`OOmNOCfl-hOJNA
`444444444mflmm-th4
`NNNNNNNNNAmummth—xoco
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Hector Castellanos is a citizen of California, residing in Antioch,
`
`California. castellanos has worked for Uber as a driver for approximately the last three years.
`15.
`Plaintiff Worksafe is a California—based organization dedicated to promoting and
`
`protecting the basic right of all people to a safe and healthy workplace. For nearly 40 years,
`
`Worksafe has led campaigns that have made California a national leader in occupational safety
`
`and health (“OSH”). Worksafe provides leadership and coordination among labor, legal, and
`
`public health advocates to pass protective OSH laws. Their initiatives prioritize issues of concern
`
`to low—income, immigrant, and contingent workers, including Uber drivers.
`
`16.
`
`, Plaintiff Chinese Progressive Association (“CPA”) is a nonprofit that develops the
`
`leadership of Chinese immigrant working families in San Francisco to improve living and
`
`working conditions for all. CPA’s Workers Rights’ programs include wage theft case support,
`hospitality job trainingprogram, community education and outreach, grassroots leadership.
`
`development and policy advocacy. Their membership includes Uber drivers.
`
`17.
`Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that maintains its
`principal place of business at 1455 Market Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, California 94103.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant Uber USA, LLCis a Delaware limited liability company that maintains
`
`its principal place of business at 1455 Market Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, California
`
`941 O3.
`
`Defendant Raiser-CA, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that maintains
`19.
`its principal place of business at 1455 Market Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, California
`
`,
`
`941 03.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant Rasier, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that maintains its
`
`principal place of business at 1455 Market Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, California 94103.
`
`21.
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_ Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is the parent company of Defendants Uber
`
`USA, LLC, Rasier, LLC, and Rasier—CA, LLC.
`
`22.
`
`Rasier, LLC and Raiser-CA, LLC (collectively, “Rasier Defendants”) act as
`
`intermediaries between Uber and its drivers by managing those drivers’ contracts and tax forms
`
`and by issuing payments from Uber to its drivers. Uber’s drivers have no way to contact the
`
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Di
`
`'\
`. 5:
`
`.
`
`_\
`
`RasierDefendants but can only communicate through Uber. The Rasier Defendants are merely
`
`instrumentalities of Uber, because they are undercapitalized and because Uber controls all
`
`OCOCDNOU'l-booN
`
`material aspects of their operations.
`
`IV.
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF-ACTION
`
`23.
`
`Uber is a transportation network company that employs drivers to provide rides to
`
`customers. Uber competes with other transportation services, including public transportation,
`
`other ride-sharing services, and taxis.
`
`24.
`
`Uber’s drivers provide rides to customers who request transportation services via
`
`Uber’s customer application on their smartphones. Uber’s driver application (“app”) assigns
`
`those rides to drivers in the vicinity.
`
`25.
`
`Uber gathers an immense amount of information on both its customers and its
`
`drivers. Uber tracks its drivers’ behavior and performance,.using data from their phones. Uber
`
`uses the data to “identify unsafe driving behavior such as speeding or harsh braking and »
`
`acceleration.” It uses this data along with user ratings “as grounds for deactivating drivers.” It
`
`also uses driver data to “match available drivers .
`
`.
`
`. to users requesting services .
`
`.
`
`. based on
`
`availability, proximity, and other factors.” Uber gathers location data from riders “when the
`
`Uber app is running in the foreground (app open and on—screen) or background (app open but not
`
`on-screen) of their mobile device.” It also gathers the content of certain in-app communications
`
`between drivers and customers, “including the date and time of the communications and the
`
`content of the communications.” And Uber gathers data about how its apps are used, by, among
`
`other things, using “cookies, pixels, tags, and similar tracking technologies that create and
`
`maintain unique identifiers.” Information about Uber’s policies are available at
`
`htt s://www.uber.com/le al/en/document/?coun
`
`=united-states&1an
`
`
`
`=en&name= rivac -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`notice.
`
`26.
`
`Uber uses a complex algorithm to “match” drivers to riders. That algorithm does
`
`not just prioritize the lowest wait-time for users. Uber states that it “may also modify pairings of
`
`drivers and riders in certain instances to help maintain a safe platform; for example, [it prevents]
`
`matches if one has given the other a one-star rating in the past.” Information about Uber’s
`
`7
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9300IFX(415)434-0513Iwww.rezIaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`0
`
`9
`
`matching algorithm is available at htt s://market lace.uber.com/matchin .
`
`27.
`
`Uber regularly deactivates drivers. It warns: “If you violate any applicable terms
`
`of use, terms of the contractual agreement you agreed to when signing up for an account with
`
`Uber, or any of these Community Guidelines, you can lose access to the Uber apps.” Uber states:
`
`“There will always be unforeseen events that may ultimately lead to you losing access to the
`
`Uber apps—and we’ll update these guidelines regularly—but the [Community G]uidelines are
`
`sufficient cause for Uber to take action.” Those Community Guidelines, among other things,
`
`counsel drivers: “It may be a good idea to stay away from personal topics that can potentially be
`divisive, like religion and political beliefs.” Uber can prevent drivers from working with no prior
`
`notice. Its Community Guidelines state: “If we are made aware of potentially problematic
`
`behavior, we may contact you so we can look into it. We may, at our sole discretion, put a hold
`
`on your account or turn your account inactive until our review is complete.” Uber’s policies are
`
`available at https://www.uber.com/legal/en/documentl?countg=united-
`
`states&1ang=en&name=genera1—communi§1—
`
`guidelines& ga=2.82086358.1108171285.1603313261-1530897627.1603313261.
`
`28.
`
`These policies make clear to drivers that Uber is carefully monitoring the drivers’
`
`actions, including their use of Uber’s app.
`
`A.
`
`Uber is Promoting Proposition 22 to Evade Its Obligations as an Employer
`Under California Law
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiffs and all other California drivers are properly classified as employees and
`
`are entitled to California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102’s protections, as well as to the
`
`protections of all other provisions of state law that apply to “employees”-rather than “independent
`
`contractors.”
`
`30.
`
`The California Supreme Court landmark decision in Dynamex, 4 Cal. 5th 903,
`
`clarified California law and established the ABC test for determining whether workers are
`
`“suffered or permitted to work” and are therefore “employees” rather than “independent
`
`contractors” under California law.
`
`///
`
`OCOCDNODU'l-D-OJN—i
`NMNNNNNNN—X—AA—k—L—LAA—XQmVGm-thAOCOCONOUU'l-bOJN—l
`
`8
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`CASE NO. _
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434-0513Iwww.rezlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO.CALIFORNIA94104
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET;SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434-0513|www.rez|aw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`O
`
`I.9“
`
`31.
`
`The California Legislature codified Dynamex by enacting AB 5, which went into
`
`effect on January 1, 2020.
`
`32.
`
`Uber and other gig economy employers devoted substantial efforts to lobbying the
`
`Legislature to obtain an exemption from AB 5, and they failed. According to Judge Dolly M.
`
`Gee of the Central District of California, who rejected a challenge to Legislature’s decision not to
`
`carve out gig economy companies like Uber from'the responsibility to treat their core workers as
`
`“employees,” the “Legislature was not improperly mOtivated by animus or lobbying” in their
`
`unwillingness to create an exemption for the “gig economy.” (Lydia Olson, et al. v. State of
`
`California, et al., Case No. CV 19-10956-DMG (RAOx), Sept. 18, 2020, Order Re Defendants’
`
`Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 76), at 10.)
`
`33.
`
`Uber and other similarly situated companies then turned their sights to a ballot
`
`initiative, identified on the upcoming November 2020 ballot as Proposition 22, which those
`
`companies drafted and have thus far spent more than $188 million dollars to promote, including
`
`through the unlawful means alleged herein. (See https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-
`access—resources/measure-contributions/2020-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-22-
`
`Changes-emp1oyment-classification—rules-app-based-transportation-and-delivery-drivers-
`
`initiative-statute (last visited Oct. 21, 2020).)
`
`B.
`
`Proposition 22 Offers Considerably Fewer Protections to Uber Drivers Than
`Current California Law Provides
`
`34.
`
`If passed by the electorate, Proposition 22 would reclassify employees who drive
`
`for app-based rideshare and delivery companies, including Plaintiffs and all class members. (See
`
`Proposed Bus. & Prof. Code § 7451 (available at
`
`https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/topl—prop22.pdf (last visited October 20, 2020).)
`
`Those drivers would lose the benefits and protections that they are currently entitled to as
`
`“employees” under California law. (Id, §§ 7453-7457.) The chart below demonstrates how
`
`Proposition 22, if enacted into law, would dramatically reduce the protections currently
`
`guaranteed to employees under California law:
`
`///
`
`_\
`
`OCOCDNCDU'l-hQJN
`NNN_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_xNAOOWNOmth—X
`
`N 00
`
`NNNNNCDNCDLh-b
`
`9
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`OCDCDNODCN-POON-A
`.__\_\_\_\_L._\.—\mmeN—x
`NNNNNNNNN—AOO\IO)U1-h0)N-—\OCO
`
`_\...xmN
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434-0513|www.rez|aw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`‘SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRO'DZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET.SUITE700
`
`
`
`_ Under Current State and Federal Law
`
`Under the Ballot Proposition
`
`
`
`Wages
`
`No overtime; workers would be
`Clear minimum wage; guaranteed
`overtime (150 percent of wages for work
`eligible to earn 120 percent of the
`
`over 8 hours in one day, 40 hours in one
`local minimum wage, but only for
`
`week)
`“engaged time” (time picking up
`and transporting passengers), and
`would not be compensated for the
`time they must be signed onto the
`app to wait for a fare or for any
`other required work time
`
`
`
`
`Reimbursement phones, car cleaning, etc.) — standard IRS mileage expenses for “engaged”
`
`rate is over 57 cents pers mile
`miles (e.g., no reimbursement for
`
`time without package/passenger)
`
`I
`
`-- Workers’
`Compensation
`
`No-fault coverage for work-related
`injuries
`
`Not “no-fault,” easier for insurers
`to deny coverage
`
`Paid Family
`Leave
`
`Eight weeks of paid leave
`
`Paid Sick Days Three days of paid leave for illness or
`care of family — up to ten in some cities;
`additional COVID-19 leave in some
`cities
`
`Unemployment Up to 26 weeks of cash benefits after no-
`Compensation
`fault job loss
`
`None
`
`None
`
`
`
`
`Expense
`Allexpensesreimbursed(mileage,cell
`Thirtycenterspermile,butonly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Disability
`Insurance
`
`_
`
`
`
`Limited — caps total coverage for
`104 weeks
`
`Lifetime access to wage replacement if
`injured
`
`
`Health
`Access to federal benefits under the
`Limited — stipend only available to
`Insurance
`Affordable Care Act
`drivers who work over 15 hours of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“engaged” time for one company,
`and calculated based on “engaged”
`time, reducing the benefit amount
`
`Discrimination
`
`Protection against discrimination based
`on a broad set of characteristics
`
`No explicit protection against
`discrimination based on
`
`”'
`
`'
`
`immigration status
`
`Could be created under state law
`
`None
`
`Right to
`Organize and
`Collectively
`Bargain
`
`Protection from Protection from termination or discipline None
`Retaliation
`for reporting harassment, discrimination,
`or wage theft
`
`Health and
`Safety
`
`Requirements put in place injury
`prevention plans; give workers access to
`sanitation facilities
`
`No similar requirement
`
`(See Rey Fuentes, Rebecca Smith, & Brian Chen, “Rigging the Gig: How Uber, Lyft, and
`
`DoorDash’s Ballot Initiative Would Put Corporations Above the Law and Steal Wages, Benefits,
`
`and Protections from California Workers” (July 2020), page 2 (available at
`
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`CAsE NO.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434—9800IFX(415)434-0513Iwww.rezlaw.com
`
`_\
`
`ocoooxloaowhoo'm
`
`NMNNNNNNN—t—A—A—A—A—AAAA—lCDVCDm-hOJN—AOCOCDNCDU‘ILOONA
`
`
`
`htt s://s27l47. cdn.co/w —content/u loads/Ri in -the—Gi Final-07.07.2020. df) (as
`
`modified).)
`
`C.
`
`Uber is Attempting to Direct Its Employees’ Political Actions Through a
`Coercive Campaign of Misinformation
`
`35.
`
`Uber is exerting extreme and wrongful pressure on its drivers to vote for and
`
`advocate for the passage of Proposition 22 in the 2020 election. In plain violation of the worker
`
`free—political-choice guarantees of Labor Code section 1101, Uber developed, funded, and
`
`ruthlessly implemented its statewide campaign of controlling, directing, and tending to control or
`
`direct the political activities or affiliations of its drivers.
`
`36.
`
`Through Uber’s app, it communicates directly with its entire fleet of drivers.
`
`Drivers must use the app to obtain work, because Uber assigns and tracks rides through its app,
`
`accepts customer payments through its app, and does not make any other means of
`
`communications or operations available to its drivers or customers.
`
`37.
`
`In or around August 2020, Uber began—forcing its drivers to read Uber’s barrage of
`
`misinformation about Proposition 22. These messages appear in three different ways.
`
`38.
`
`First, when drivers sign on to the app, the first screen they see has sometimes
`
`contained a directive to vote yes on Proposition 22, along with links to further information. The
`
`driver must click through Uber’s instructions and information regarding Proposition 22 to begin
`
`accepting rides.
`
`39.
`
`Second, when drivers sign off, the log off screen often directs them to vote for
`
`Proposition 22. Many drivers repeatedly log on and off the app during a shift.
`
`40.
`
`Third, Uber messages its drivers asking them to take action to support Proposition
`
`22, to vote for Proposition 22, and to read Uber’s misleading information about Proposition 22.
`
`When drivers are using the app, they can see when they have unread messages in their inboxes.
`
`If they are not using the app, it sends them notifications that appear on banners on their phones
`
`notifying them that they have a message from Uber. Uber drivers are incentiviz'ed to check their
`
`messages. For example, Uber messages drivers about “quests,” which provide drivers the
`
`opportunity to earn more by reducing Uber’s fees when the drivers reach certain trip goals in a
`
`l 1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`'
`
`CASE NO.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`RUDYEXELRODZIEFF&LOWELLP
`
`
`
`
`
`351CALIFORNIASTREET,SUITE700
`
`
`
`
`
`SANFRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94104
`
`
`
`
`
`PH(415)434-9800|FX(415)434-0513[www.rezlaw.com
`
`OCOCDNODU'l-bOONA
`NMNNNNNNNAAA—X—XAAA—X—Xmumm-wa—xocoooxlmmth—x
`
`set amount of time.
`
`41.
`
`A representative sample of Uber’s solicitations and advertising materials are
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit A, which are true and correct copies of the solicitations and advertising
`
`materials that Plaintiff Valdez, like all other similarly situated Uber drivers in California, recently
`
`received upon logging into Uber’s app.
`
`1.
`
`Uber is Threatening its Drivers with the Loss of Their Employment
`
`42.
`
`Uber is using unlawfully coercive tactics and wrongful threats ofjob loss to
`
`pressure its employees into voting for Proposition 22 and into providing material support to Uber
`
`and other gig economy employers in their efforts to promote Proposition 22 through false
`
`statements, omissions of essential facts, and misrepresentations, including misrepresentations
`
`concerning the supposed overwhelming support for Proposition 22 from those companies’ own
`
`drivers.
`
`43.
`
`Uber has directly threatened in public statements that its drivers would lose their
`
`jobs if Proposition 22 fails at the ballot box and Uber is required to pay its employees as
`
`“employees” and to pay taxes to state and local government as an “employer” of those
`
`“employees.” On August 19, 2020, after the San Francisco Superior Court (Schulman, J.)
`
`enjoined Uber from continuing to misclassify its drivers as independent contractors, Uber
`
`communicated to its drivers through misleading public messaging that it would be impossible for
`
`Uber to continue providing rides in California — meaning all drivers would lose their jobs —
`
`unless Proposition 22 passed. Uber plainly stated in its public statements that it would have no
`
`choice in the matter. CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said, “Whether we close down or not is really up
`
`to the courts and it’s totally out of our control at this point.” Without a stay of the Superior
`
`Court’s injunction, Mr. Khosrowshahi said, “Essentially the service has to shut down.”1
`
`1 hflpsM/wwwpoliticocom/states/california/stog/2020/08/ 1 9/uber-and—lyft—threaten—to-
`take-their-cars-and-go—home- 1 3 10414; see also https://www.marketplace.org/2020/08/20/uber-
`lyft-can-keep-driving-california-for-now/ (“Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi had repeatedly said
`its service wou