The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal in the case on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 22 — a ballot measure approved by state voters in November 2020. The measure allows work services platforms such as Uber and Lyft to continue classifying their drivers as independent contractors.

While a trial court found the measure violated the state’s constitution, a California appellate court decision this year upheld the work services platforms’ right to classify drivers as independent contractors.

Proposition 22 was the most expensive ballot measure in the state’s history and came in response to a law enacted by the state legislature called AB 5. The law was aimed at making it more difficult for companies to classify their workers as independent contractors. 

The coalition to Protect App-Based Drivers and Services released a statement from a rideshare driver lauding the California Supreme Court’s move to hear the case.

“We remain confident that the Court will uphold Prop 22 to protect the people’s right of initiative and the overwhelming will of California voters,” Claudia D., an app-based driver in the San Francisco Bay Area, said in a statement released by the coalition. “It is shameful that special interests continue to undermine the will of the overwhelming majority of Californians who voted for Prop 22 and drivers like me who want to remain independent contractors.”

Protect App-Based Drivers and Services was the group backing Proposition 22 when it went to the ballot. On the flip side, unions continue to oppose Proposition 22, and one union released its own driver statement.

“More than two years after the passage of Prop 22, gig workers like me across California are still demanding basic rights like paid sick leave, meaningful health benefits and overtime pay,” said Hector Castellanos, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, in a statement released by the SEIU union. “Right now, drivers are still struggling to make ends meet because wealthy corporations like Uber, Lyft and DoorDash are relentless in their drive to avoid paying us fairly and respecting our rights. We’re sick of Prop 22, and we remain committed in our fight to beat it.”

Castellanos continued, “With Prop 22, the gig companies are violating our constitution and undermining its spirit. Our constitution is supposed to give us rights, not take them away. It’s supposed to give us a voice through our elected officials, not undercut their power to pass laws that protect us. I’m grateful that the California Supreme Court is reviewing the case, and we are hopeful it will defend our state’s constitution so that gig workers are treated with dignity and respect.”

The case is Castellanos v. state of California (Protect App-Based Drivers and Services).