Supreme Court turns down challenge of California labor lawsuits by Uber, Lyft

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to perceive appeals from ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft, which were asking to artifact California authorities labour lawsuits that question backmost wage for tens of thousands of drivers.

Without comment, the justices turned down appeals from some companies. At issue, they said, was the scope of the arbitration agreements betwixt drivers and the companies.

A authorities appeals tribunal ruled past twelvemonth that authorities labour officials are not bound by arbitration agreements which they did not motion oregon support.

In their entreaty to the Supreme Court, lawyers for Uber and Lyft, joined by a conjugation of California employers, contended the Federal Arbitration Act overrides authorities laws and blocks wide lawsuits seeking wealth for employees who had agreed to arbitrate claims arsenic individuals. They said the lawsuit “represents California’s latest effort to make a loophole” successful the law.”

Four years ago, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Labor Commissioner Lilia Garcia-Brower sued the ride-hailing companies for the “misclassification of drivers arsenic autarkic contractors” alternatively than arsenic employees.

This near “workers without protections specified arsenic paid sick permission and reimbursement of drivers’ expenses, arsenic good arsenic overtime and minimum wages,” Garcia-Brower said astatine the time. The suit sought wealth “for unpaid wages and penalties owed to workers which volition beryllium distributed to each drivers who worked for Uber oregon Lyft during the clip play covered by the lawsuits.”

The suit continued adjacent aft voters approved Proposition 22 successful 2020 to uphold the authorization of companies to classify drivers arsenic autarkic contractors.

Last year, the authorities appeals tribunal successful San Francisco ruled the authorities lawsuits whitethorn proceed due to the fact that the authorities officials did not hold to beryllium bound by the arbitration agreements.

“The radical and the labour commissioner are not parties to the arbitration agreements invoked by Uber and Lyft,” said Justice Jon Streeter for the California tribunal of appeals. He said the authorities officials are not suing connected behalf of drivers, but alternatively enforcing the state’s labour laws.

“The applicable statutory schemes expressly authorize the radical and the labour commissioner to bring the claims (and question the relief) astatine contented here,” helium said. “The nationalist officials who brought these actions bash not deduce their authorization from idiosyncratic drivers but from their autarkic statutory authorization to bring civilian enforcement actions.”

In January, the authorities Supreme Court refused to perceive an appeal. Uber and Lyft past asked the U.S. Supreme Court to measurement in.

In caller years, the blimpish precocious tribunal has regularly clashed with California judges implicit arbitration and ruled for businesses that sought to bounds lawsuits.

Two years ago, the justices struck down portion of authorities instrumentality that authorized backstage attorneys to writer on behalf of a radical of employees, adjacent though they had agreed to beryllium bound by idiosyncratic arbitration.

The California Employment Law Council, which represents astir 80 backstage employers successful the state, had urged the tribunal to perceive the Uber lawsuit and regularisation that the authorities whitethorn not sidestep arbitration agreements.

“The California courts person been clear. They don’t similar arbitration,” said Paul Grossman, a Los Angeles lawyer with the Paul Hastings steadfast who represents backstage employers.