Skip to main content

California Trucking Association Files Suit to Block Implementation of Assembly Bill 5


Yesterday, the California Trucking Association filed suit in federal court, seeking to block implementation of Assembly Bill 5.

Readers will recall that the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 5 recently, which Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law.  As a refresher, Assembly Bill 5 codified the ABC test, created by a California Supreme Court decision.  That ABC test makes it easier for workers to be classified as employees rather than independent contractors.  (The new law is set to go into effect January 1, 2020.)  Many large scale employers in the state, including Lyft & Uber, have since gone on the offensive as they seek to be exempt from the new law.

The California Trucking Association’s lawsuit claims Assembly Bill 5 runs afoul of federal law because the ABC test is preempted by constitutional clauses regarding federal supremacy and commerce.  Further, the lawsuit alleged that the ABC test conflicts with federal laws for motor carriers and transportation.  Interesting enough, the California Trucking Association also has claimed that truck drivers in the state want to remain classified as independent contractors do as to maintain their ability to provide services as owner-operators of their rigs.  (Presumably, this “freedom” would vanish if the truck drivers became employees.

The end goal of the lawsuit?  To obtain a ruling that the ABC test not apply to the trucking industry.  While it is still too early to predict the outcome of the legislation, I would not be surprised if a temporary injunction were issued to prevent Assembly Bill 5 from going into effect while this lawsuit plays out further.


For a copy of the lawsuit:  https://01a3edcb-713b-4446-a7f4-8c833b6d990e.filesusr.com/ugd/7c8ac7_8b183e17b4e64b168c01ee094b592ba4.pdf

For additional information:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfchronicle.com/business/amp/Trucking-group-sues-to-be-exempted-from-14829931.php

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more