Daily News

View All News

Appeals court overturns AB 5 injunction; rules California truckers should be employees, not ICs

April 30, 2021

A federal appeals court in San Francisco this week ruled that truck drivers in California should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors, overturning an injunction that stopped the trucking industry from coming under Assembly Bill 5, California’s get-tough law on independent contractor misclassification.

The California Trucking Association and two California independent owner-operator truck drivers first filed the lawsuit in 2019, arguing that the “ABC” classification test set forth in the Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court decision, and codified by AB 5, violates federal law because it is preempted by the supremacy and commerce clauses in the US Constitution and is in direct conflict with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act and the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (F4A).

However, this week’s ruling by the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals held the application of AB 5 to motor carriers is not preempted by the F4A.

“Because AB 5 is a generally applicable labor law that affects a motor carrier’s relationship with its workforce and does not bind, compel, or otherwise freeze into place the prices, routes, or services of motor carriers, we conclude that it is not preempted by the F4A,” Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote in the opinion.

Dissenting Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett wrote that AB 5 both affects motor carriers’ relationship with their workers and significantly impacts the services motor carriers are able to provide to their customers, and it therefore is preempted as applied to California Trucking Association’s members.

The California Trucking Association said it would take “whatever legal steps are necessary to continue this fight on behalf of independent owner-operators and motor carriers operating in California,” AP reported. The case could wind up before the US Supreme Court, especially because the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled in 2016 that a similar Massachusetts law did conflict with federal law.