Drivers Benjamin Valdez and Hector Castellanos, along with two nonprofits, said in a complaint lodged in San Francisco Superior Court that the company has been foisting pop-up messages on its workers through the app they need to use to work. Those messages imply that drivers could lose their jobs if they do not support Proposition 22 in the Nov. 3 general election.
The measure, which the complaint says Uber and other gig economy employers have shelled out $188 million to support, would exempt the companies' drivers from A.B. 5, a law that makes it harder to classify workers as independent contractors.
"Despite California's longstanding prohibitions against employer interference with the political rights and freedoms of their 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," the lawsuit said.
The workers panned Uber's in-app threats it would lay off 70% of its drivers — or fire all of them and bring some back on — should Proposition 22 not pass, saying that would be Uber's own business decision and not "compelled by law or circumstances."
The company also falsely laid out threats that if Proposition 22 does not pass, drivers will lose flexibility and pay, the plaintiffs said, noting "there is no legal reason" either of those things would have to happen.
One pop-up directed drivers to click only either "Yes on Prop. 22" or "OK" without providing them any other options, the complaint said. Another message reportedly encouraged drivers to video themselves on their phones explaining why they support Proposition 22, according to the suit.
In August, a California judge granted a preliminary injunction that required Uber and Lyft to classify their drivers as employees. Until the First Appellate District upheld the injunction Thursday, it had been on pause, allowing the companies to continue to classify their workers as independent contractors who do not enjoy the benefits of overtime, anti-discrimination, and other legal protections afforded employees.
But the appeals court found Thursday that Uber and Lyft drivers perform their work in the course of the company's normal business and must be considered employees.
The companies have 30 days to comply after the issuance of the appeals court's remittitur, or mandate.
Thursday's driver lawsuit asked the court for an injunction that would halt the messages and prevent Uber from using drivers' responses to either reward or punish them, and require the company to inform drivers they can vote however they like or not at all.
"Almost every time we log on, we are fed more one-sided information to pressure us into supporting Prop. 22," Valdez said in a statement Thursday.
A spokesperson for Uber blasted the lawsuit Thursday.
"This is an absurd lawsuit, without merit, filed solely for press attention and without regard for the facts. It can't distract from the truth: that the vast majority of drivers support Prop 22, and have for months, because they know it will improve their lives and protect the way they prefer to work," Davis White said in an e-mailed statement.
The plaintiffs are represented by David A. Lowe, John T. Mullan, Michelle G. Lee, Meghan F. Loisel, William P. McElhinny of Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe LLP and George A. Warner and Kimberly Ouillette of Legal Aid At Work.
Counsel information for Uber was not immediately available.
The case is Valdez et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., case number CGC-20-587266, in San Francisco Superior Court.
--Additional reporting by Dave Simpson, Jon Steingart, Hannah Albarazi, Braden Campbell and Vin Gurrieri. Editing by Michael Watanabe.
Update: This story has been updated with additional information.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
