End Of The Road For ‘Misclassification’ of Workers by Lyft and Uber?

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed a motion Wednesday to enjoin Uber and Lyft from continuing to classify ride-hailing drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.

The motion, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, follows the 2019 passage of Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), a law codifying a landmark California Supreme Court ruling that places the burden on employers to show they are properly classifying workers as independent contractors rather than employees.  

In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, California’s high court said most workers should be classified as employees and receive sick leave and unemployment and workers’ compensation. 

Though AB5 went into effect on Jan. 1, Lyft and Uber continue to classify their drivers as independent contractors, while pocketing the cost of employee benefits. 

Along with several other app-coordinated services,  Uber and Lyft are furiously promoting a ballot measure for the November election to exempt gig workers from the AB5 rules. Continue reading “End Of The Road For ‘Misclassification’ of Workers by Lyft and Uber?”

A Million Violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act?

What happens when  an individual or group asserts a human right that interferes with another individual or group’s rights and freedoms?

If the disadvantaged group is older Americans, their rights silently slip away.

Earlier this month, a coalition of 55 top U.S. companies  called The 100,000 Opportunities Initiative issued a press release touting a  “long-term effort” in the Atlanta area to bring jobs to “youth” aged 16 to 24 who are not in school or unemployed. Coalition members made thousands of on-the-spot job offers at a job fair on May 3. Coalition members have held similar hiring  events in Washington,  D.C., Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Phoenix and Seattle since the coalition’s formation six years ago.

The coalition now says it “aims to hire at least 1 million youth nationally  by 2021.”

The problem is that it is illegal under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) to refuse to hire workers aged 40 and above because of their age or, alternatively, because they aren’t between the ages of 16 and 24.  It also is illegal for a company to adopt a policy or practice  that has a disparate impact upon older workers.  Clearly, the rights of older workers to be free from invidious age discrimination in hiring have given way … but to what exactly? Continue reading “A Million Violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act?”