Lyft, on Camp Street
Parked on Camp Street. July 2021, Photo by Lydia Chávez

A California Superior Court judge’s decision Friday that Proposition 22 is unconstitutional represented a milestone in the rideshare and gig worker landscape, one that could pave the way toward better work conditions, gig workers said.

Uber, Lyft, Doordash and other gig-economy giants spent more than $200 million to promote the measure as beneficial for drivers, and it passed in November, 2020, with some 58 percent of the vote. The measure, the companies argued, would allow workers to retain a flexible schedule and grant them benefits such as a minimum wage and a health stipend. But after the initiative won, some elements of rideshare driving that offered flexibility — created during the Prop. 22 campaign — vanished. 

While the court’s ruling did not address any of those issues, it makes it clear that the rideshare and delivery driver companies overreached in a measure that made it nearly impossible for gig workers or legislators to alter. Its demise offered great hope to organizers. 

Veena Dubal, a U.C. Hastings law professor who has researched the gig economy and filed a brief supporting the drivers in the case, explained that the court ruled that the measure was invalid because it violated a California rule that limits initiative statutes to a single subject.

“The court said that (Prop. 22) only really protected the economic interests of the companies and did not protect the workers, and because its stated objective was something quite different than what it actually did, it violated the law,” she said.

Also, the court ruled that the measure took away legislators’ ability to provide workers’ compensation or create some sort of work compensation scheme for workers, which violated the California Constitution, she said.

Drivers have protested the measure since its passage, holding that gig giants have reneged on the promises made during the campaign on Prop. 22. So, for many, Friday’s decision was long-awaited and fueled excitement over potentially better conditions down the road.

Ken Jacobs, chair of the University of California at Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, said it’s a big win for drivers who challenged the law — but only the first stage, and it could take another year until it’s resolved. He added that he wants to know what will happen with the attorney general’s lawsuit for injunctive relief requiring Uber and Lyft to classify drivers as employees, which was put on hold when Prop. 22 took effect.

“If this is held up by the California Supreme Court, then we’re back into the courts over the issue of them complying with the law,” he said.

That promises to be a lengthy fight. But it’s one gig workers are now far more hopeful about. Cherri Murphy, a three-year Lyft driver with the advocacy organization Gig Workers Rising, said, “(I know) what it means to be driving without workers compensation, having a looming threat of an accident with no workers compensation. I know what it’s like to not have proper healthcare. I know what it’s like to not have a fair wage or a restroom. So, gig workers like me, we are celebrating this huge victory.”

Dubal said she suspects the decision will be appealed in the next three to four weeks. After the appellate ruling, she said, it will “certainly be appealed to the California Supreme Court.”

It’s possible for someone to file an injunction forcing the companies to comply pending an appeal. However, Dubal said, she suspects the companies will not change how they treat workers until forced to do so by the California Supreme Court.

“We can anticipate this will go on for the next many months,” she said.

So far, nothing has changed on the road, said one Uber and Lyft driver nicknamed Molhado.

“Uber and Lyft haven’t changed anything — they sent us a text that it’s going to continue the same way it is, and they’re going to appeal and all that shit,” he said. “All the drivers want is just being paid fairly you know, that’s all … Right now, it’s not right — they’re taking too much money out of the rides from us.”

That message went out to drivers on Saturday, according to an email obtained by Mission Local with the subject line, “Prop 22 remains in effect.”

“ … we will appeal this ruling, and we expect to win. In the meantime, nothing has changed. Prop 22 remains in effect, including all of the protections and benefits it provides independent workers like you, like guaranteed minimum earnings, injury protection, and more,” Uber said in the statement. “It’s also important to say that this ruling does not reclassify drivers and delivery people as employees — preserving the flexibility and independence you have repeatedly told us you value.”


With copycat legislation being proposed in other states, Friday’s ruling offers an indication of what may transpire elsewhere.

In the spring, Uber removed two features it granted drivers during the Prop. 22 campaign, features that appeared to give workers the agency of independent contractors. 

Dubal, the U.C. Hastings law professor, said that the act of rescinding these policies was significant.

Uber removed drivers’ ability to set their own rates with a fare multiplier, stating that 80 percent of passengers who’d matched with a driver with a multiplier of more than “1x” had declined the higher fare and failed to request another ride with Uber.

“This is the big elephant in the room,” said Torsten Kunert, a popular rideshare YouTuber known by the alias “Rideshare Professor,” who added he gets some 300 emails a day from drivers. “Drivers had their multiplier once, they stepped into their true worth and made money that they deserved to make, and then it was taken away.”

Uber also stopped showing drivers the details of their next trip unless they accepted five of the most recent 10 rides.

“It was trying to control what I do, which is what an employer does,” said James Allen, an Uber driver with more than 4,000 rides. “If you’re an independent contractor, you adjust this stuff on your own.”

Kunert said that a true independent contractor would be able to set their own rates, work at their own schedule and can decide where they drive.

“We have to understand that we got a taste, we got an appetizer of what it could be like to be an independent contractor, and that got stripped away,” he said. “And now it’s time to stand up and fight for it.”

What’s more, many drivers have expressed confusion over how to get the quarterly healthcare subsidy from Prop. 22.

The minimum work hours required for the stipend only counts time when a passenger is in the car; it’s inaccessible to drivers who get insurance through family members or through MediCare or MediCal; and the vast majority of drivers are unaware of the requirements for the insurance, according to a study by Tulchin Research and commissioned by SEIU.

Eric Dryburgh, field director at the advocacy organization Rideshare Drivers United, said that of the many calls he’s had with drivers, just one or two spoke of receiving healthcare benefits through the companies.

Molhado, the Uber driver, said he hasn’t received anything.

“I worked for them for a year and a half, more than 40 hours a week — last week, worked 84 hours — haven’t gotten shit,” he said about the health stipend. 

Kunert, the Rideshare Professor on YouTube, said he’s hoping for drivers to negotiate a hybrid model somewhere between independent contractor and employee, where drivers can have independent contractor rights and have a voice at the table for better work conditions, including medical coverage. 

“Right now what they’re offering is a very, very watered-down version, and you’re literally forced to drive around the clock and put in big hours to … achieve Uber and Lyft’s” health coverage, he said.

Follow Us

David Mamaril Horowitz

David’s one of those San Francisco natives who gets excited whenever City College is mentioned. He has journalism degrees from there and San Francisco State University, graduating from the latter in May 2021. In college, David played five different roles as an editor at student news publications and reported as an intern for three local newspapers, mostly while waiting tables at the Alamo Drafthouse. His first job was at Mitchell's Ice Cream.

Join the Conversation


Please keep your comments short and civil. Do not leave multiple comments under multiple names on one article. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and very easy-to-follow rules.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. In Chicago, IL, I was hit and injured by an uber driver, as well as having my foot run over and my high heal broken!!!! I’m in excruciating agony and am on my way to visit a doctor! Definitely, I’m going to sue Uber! Someone needs to get in touch with me right away! Uber is a horrible company that isn’t going to pay my medical bills or compensate me for the time, emotion, and physical pain I’m in. I’m a nurse who can’t even go to work because of this accident, and Uber has done nothing about it; we were supposed to get our money back and instead received a dollar.

  2. here is another driver’s perspective, a friend of mine.
    He drives professionally for ages. first as a limo driver until 6 years ago when he bought a new prius and started to drive for Uber.
    and that’s what he does ever since. with the forgivable SBA loan he got a new and better car just recently.
    the gist i get from him is that if you live here in SF and you work full-time, it can be lucrative. the more you drive the more bonuses you get and better fares as well as preferential treatment (e.g. after drop-off at SFO he gets a new customer immediately instead of circling or waiting).
    He drives 5-6 days/week with up to 10hrs/day and clears around $2k/week gross.
    if you like driving, don’t have another professional background, work full-time, live in the city, it seems to work.
    my personal perspective: i used to work under fraudulent classification as a contractor until i sued my employer. therefore i do not condone the business practices of the gig industry. i think prop 22 was absolutely questionable and should be rescinded.

  3. Driving for them is a bad idea if one wants to safely make money and have a good time. I drove for LYFT and UBER, 30 hrs. per week, for the first three months of this year. No labor pay was received, received funds went towards hidden and actual motor vehicle expenses. My CPA and I realized $983.00 was lost (on paper) during this time period. Lyft and Uber’s business model includes the subtle extraction of resources from their drivers. Many bizarre and scary passenger experiences were encountered; on two occasions, the police were called. Support from Lyft and Uber is essentially non-existent. Thus, I recommend no one do this

  4. “We can anticipate this will go on for the next many months,”

    More likely years. And, given that Waymo is starting to offer autonomous rides to the public, there’s a good chance it won’t matter what the CA Supreme Court decide by then.

  5. I was hit by a person the lawyer took it to small claims and I won only1000 not enough to cover damages and lost wages mind you I can’t drive any longer with Lyft until I fix damages I still have time to sue under the true of limitation if someone can call me regarding this matter

  6. Will be fun for those drivers having to go back and work the registers at McDonalds. Oh wait, rising minimum wage is now driving fast food restaurants to use touchscreen ordering.

    Oh well.

    1. At least you will make money, not lose it, working for McDonalds. By the way, was that a large Coke you wanted?