In Castellanos v. State of California the Supreme Court is expected to decide the validity of Proposition 22, the 2020 initiative — heavily financed by Uber and Lyft — that classifies app-based drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. (See here.) Specifically, the court has limited the issue to: “Does Business and Professions Code section 7451, which was enacted by Proposition 22 (the ‘Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act’), conflict with article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution [which gives the Legislature the “plenary power . . . to create, and enforce a complete system of workers’ compensation”] and therefore require that Proposition 22, by its own terms, be deemed invalid in its entirety?” (Links added.)
Castellanos is a high profile case by any measure. One measure is the number of amicus curiae briefs it has attracted. There are 21 of them.
Former Justice Joseph Grodin is a named amicus on one of the briefs. He has been an amicus in U.S. Supreme Court cases (see here and here) and a number of other California Supreme Court cases as well.
Here’s a list of the amici.
Amici supporting the plaintiffs, who are challenging Prop. 22:
- Dave Cortese and Liz Ortega
- California Applicants’ Attorneys Association
- National Employment Law Project, California Labor Federation, Rideshare Drivers United, Gig Workers Rising, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, PowerSwitch Action, Worksafe, Action Center on Race & the Economy, the Economic Policy Institute, Bet Tzedek, and the California Immigrant Policy Center
- David R. Henderson, Keith Chen, Jeffrey R. Hummel, Ethan Ligon, Michael Marlow, Lee E. Ohanian, Damian Park, Valerie Ramey, Abbylin H. Sellers, William F. Shughart II, Brian P. Simpson, Robert S. Taylor
- City and County of San Francisco, the City of Oakland, the City of San Diego, and the County of Santa Clara
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 396, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 542, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 848, and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO
- Sameer Ashar, Veena Dubal, Catherine Fisk, Charlotte Garden, Joseph Grodin, William B. Gould IV, Stephen Lee, Leticia Saucedo, Reuel Schiller, Katherine Stone, and Noah D. Zatz
Amici supporting the defendants who are defending Prop. 22:
- Robert Timothy Leslie and James Stephen Peace
- California Constitution Scholars
- Crum & Forster Holding Co.
- Independent Drivers Alliance for California, Kelly Rickert, Ali Mazhin, and Stephanie Whitfield
- Citizens in Charge and The Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California
- T. Anthony Quinn, Daniel Schnur, and Robert M. Stern
- William R. Berryhill
- California Chamber of Commerce
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
- California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, NAACP California Hawaii State Conference, National Action Network Los Angeles, National Action Network Sacramento Chapter Inc., and National Diversity Coalition
- Marketplace Industry Association, Inc.
- Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
- Chamber of Progress, NetChoice, Asian Industry B2B, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and sf.citi
- Amicus Populi
The court last week granted extensions to June 3 for the parties to respond to the amicus briefs.
The court sent its oral argument letter seven weeks ago. Based on counsel’s responses to the letter and the court’s responses to the responses, it appears the Castellanos argument will not be on the June calendar, but could be on the early-May or late-May calendars. It is not unheard of to have an oral argument before the filing of responses to amicus briefs. If the case is not argued in May, it probably won’t be heard until September, the next calendar after June.
Related:
Bob Egelko wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle, “As Prop. 22 heads to California Supreme Court, support doesn’t break along ideological lines.”