Court Dismisses Uber’s Challenge to App-Deactivation Law Protecting Workers

January 2, 2025 TruthUSA

The court said the law does not result in any ‘significant’ restrictions on the company’s First Amendment rights.

A district court in Washington nixed Uber’s challenge to a Seattle law aimed at protecting gig workers from being randomly cut off from their jobs, rejecting the company’s claims of First Amendment violations.

In August 2023, Seattle signed into law “App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance.” The law covers gig workers such as those engaged in food delivery, providing them with rights and protections related to deactivation—when the employer blocks an employee from the app, which prevents them from working.

The law requires companies to provide workers with deactivation policies, clearly stating what actions could lead to such decisions. The policies must be “reasonably related” to the entity’s “safe and efficient operation,” and the company must provide notice to the worker before deactivation and set up a process for these individuals to challenge the action. The law was set to come into effect on Jan. 1.

On Dec. 18, Uber filed a lawsuit at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle, seeking a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction that prevents the law from being enforced. On Dec. 31, Judge Marsha J. Pechman denied the request.

In its complaint, Uber argued that the ordinance violated the First Amendment by “compelling speech and failing to satisfy strict scrutiny.” The company argued it was forced to “publicly embrace the City’s view on what is ‘safe and efficient,’ not what it believes is reasonable.”

The judge ruled that Uber was incorrect on this claim because the company is not compelled to define what is safe or efficient.

“The Court finds that the Ordinance’s requirements do little more than regulate conduct without any significant impact on speech or expression,” the ruling said.

Uber’s second claim was that the ordinance restricted the company’s “expressive association rights,” which refers to the right to associate with others to express beliefs and ideas.

The court dismissed the claim, saying that Uber’s association with app workers was “purely commercial” and that it failed to identify “any expressive association that it engages in.” The relationship between Uber and workers is that of an employer and the employee and “there is nothing expressive in this arrangement,” Pechman wrote.

The company made a third claim, that the ordinance is “unconstitutionally vague” as it does not define what the terms “reasonably related” and “safe and efficient operations” mean. Pechman rejected these claims as well.

“Uber fails to show how the ‘reasonably related’ language in the Ordinance somehow prevents it from understanding what types of deactivation policies would be prohibited,” she wrote.

The Epoch Times reached out to Uber for comment by received no reply by publication time.

Gig Work Complaints

App-based businesses have been involved in multiple complaints recently over worker issues.

In October, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), for example, fined ride-sharing company Lyft $2.1 million as part of a settlement agreement for allegedly making deceptive earnings claims to drivers.

For instance, in Atlanta, Lyft said drivers could earn up to $33 per hour; in Portland, Oregon, $41; and in Los Angeles, $43. However, the company did not reveal that the amount “did not represent the income an average driver could expect to earn,” the FTC said.

These numbers were “based on the earnings of the top one-fifth of drivers,” the agency said. “The complaint notes that these figures overinflated the actual earnings achieved by most drivers by as much as 30 percent.”

Lyft said it agreed to settle the matter as the company recognizes the “importance of transparency in maintaining trust in the communities.”

The company also said it would take steps to ensure that what it says about driver earnings in its advertising “is clear.” In February, Lyft became the “first and only” company to provide riders with payment guarantees, it said.

Meanwhile, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently announced filing a lawsuit against Walmart and Branch, a fintech company, for opening deposit accounts for more than 1 million delivery drivers without their knowledge or permission. Walmart made opening the account a condition for employment.

The CFPB called these actions deceptive practices that ended up costing drivers millions of dollars in junk fees overall. The agency is looking to stop these practices, recoup money, and fine the companies.

Source link