Lauren Teukolsky’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” were published in the November 2024 edition of the CLA California Labor and Employment Law Review. Her column describes three recent decisions from California’s Supreme Court and appellate courts that affect wage-and-hour law.

Ms. Teukolsky’s column discusses whether Proposition 22’s classification of Uber and Lyft drivers as independent contractors is constitutional, and whether courts can approve PAGA settlements even when there are multiple overlapping PAGA cases. Her column also explores whether public entities are subject to California’s Labor Code provisions for rest and meal breaks.

California Lawyers Association (CLA) is a voluntary statewide bar association. Its mission is to “promote excellence, diversity and inclusion in the legal profession and fairness in access to justice and the rule of law.”  Ms. Teukolsky was recently appointed to serve on the Executive Committee of CLA’s Labor & Employment Section.  Her three-year term started in October 2024.

Ms. Teukolsky has written for CLA’s California Labor and Employment Law Review for over two years. Her “Wage and Hour Case Notes” are published on an alternating quarterly basis. Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades and her commentary on the latest developments in employment law is regularly featured by major publications such as Bloomberg Law, Law360, Law.com, and the Los Angeles Times.

​If you would like to speak with Ms. Teukolsky about a wage-and-hour matter, click here.

On Monday, the Ninth Circuit handed gig workers a win, invalidating a ruling that a Grubhub driver should be classified as an independent contractor. The Court ruled that the lower court must look at the case again because the California Supreme Court has now held that the Dynamex “ABC” test applies retroactively. Under the ABC test, a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the employer can prove that the worker: (A) was not subject to the employer’s control, (B) provided services outside of the employer’s usual course of business, and (C) did not have their own independent business.

The three-judge appellate panel remanded to the district court to apply the ABC test to plaintiff Raef Lawson’s minimum wage and overtime claims. The panel rejected Grubhub’s argument that Prop 22, which was passed last year and allows some app-based drivers to be classified as independent contractors, applies retroactively. “We conclude without difficulty that Proposition 22 does not apply retroactively,” the Court wrote. The panel also rejected Grubhub’s argument that Prop 22 somehow “abates” or nullifies wage claims that accrued before Prop 22 went into effect. This is the first time a court has ruled that Prop 22 is not retroactive, and that Prop 22 does not abate previously-existing wage claims.

On remand, the lower court must determine whether Lawson is an employee under the ABC test, and also whether Lawson is exempt from the ABC test under one of the exemptions provided for by AB5, the landmark legislation that codified the ABC test after Dynamex was decided. The AB5 exemptions are retroactive. We will be following this case closely to see if the lower court will find that Lawson is an employee or an independent contractor.

If you believe you have been misclassified as an independent contractor, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation. 

As Prop 22 goes into effect in California, workers and unions are already fighting back against the measure, which was largely propped up by tech giants’ $200 million “Yes on 22” campaign.

Several drivers and SEIU filed a petition in California Supreme Court on January 12, 2021 seeking to overturn the new ballot measure, which aims to permanently classify gig workers as independent contractors instead of employees. The drivers and union allege that Prop 22 violates California’s constitution and are asking the Court to invalidate the new law, arguing that Prop 22 makes it too difficult for state legislators to implement workers’ compensation. On February 3, the Court declined to hear the suit 5-2. However, the Court said the case could be refiled in a lower court. On February 11, the drivers and union filed a similar suit in Alameda County Superior Court.

Prop 22’s destructive effects are being felt by workers statewide. The Knock LA reported last month that Vons, Pavilions, and other stores owned by Albertsons Companies in California plan to fire grocery delivery drivers later this month and will shift to a third-party delivery service that uses independent contractors. Drivers working for Albertsons Companies are currently classified as employees; the company’s Bay Area drivers are unionized and will not be affected by the change, but delivery drivers in Southern California not protected by a union lack the power to fight back against this move by the grocery stores.
​
If you believe you have been misclassified as an independent contractor instead of an employee, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

One of the propositions on the ballot on November 3, Proposition 22, could have major implications for the future of AB 5 enforcement in California. If passed, the proposition would allow gig-economy companies like Uber, Lyft, and Instacart to classify their drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. These companies would be exempt from AB5, the new California law that requires most employers to classify their workers as employees.  Courts have consistently ruled that Uber and Lyft have violated AB5 by refusing to reclassify their drivers as employees since AB5 went into effect on January 1, 2020. As recently as October 22, 2020, a California appeals court ruled that Uber and Lyft must reclassify their drivers as employees rather than independent contractors. 

If Prop. 22 passes, Uber and Lyft would not need to comply with these court rulings.  As independent contractors, their drivers would not receive many of the benefits and protections of the employment relationship, like minimum wage protections, paid sick leave, workers' compensation benefits if they are injured or unemployment benefits in they become unemployed.

Backers of Prop. 22, including Uber, Lyft, Instacart, Postmates (owned by Uber) and DoorDash, have poured more than $187.5 million into backing the bill, making it the most expensive proposition in California history and dwarfing the $15 million raised by the opposition, spearheaded by labor groups who have traditionally represented the interests of working people over corporate interests. Prop. 22 would not only apply to Lyft and Uber drivers, but would cover all drivers who work for a "delivery network company," potentially including FedEx, Amazon, Walmart, UPS, and any other companies that makes deliveries in California.  

If passed, Prop. 22 would set a dangerous precedent in California.  Companies who don't like laws that the Legislature passes, and who don't like court rulings requiring them to treat their workers fairly, could simply open their coffers -- filled with the profits they earn by not spending money on employee benefits -- and buy themselves a ballot proposition. Significantly, Prop. 22 contains a provision stating that it cannot be amended except by a 7/8 majority of the Legislature, effectively tying lawmakers' hands for the rest of eternity absent a new ballot proposition.  California voters should reject this company-sponsored initiative and let the California Legislature do its job to govern in the interests of the people. 

If you think you have been misclassified as an independent contractor, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.