The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is currently deliberating on whether ballot proposals should be permitted to redefine the relationship between app-based companies like Uber Technologies and Lyft and their drivers for the upcoming November election.
During oral arguments in Boston, justices expressed reservations about certain aspects of a proposal from an industry-supported group. This proposal seeks to affirm drivers as independent contractors under state law, granting them some new benefits but excluding them from being considered company employees. Despite this, the justices seemed inclined to reject a contention from a labor-backed coalition. This coalition argues that the proposal violates the state's constitution by exempting drivers from various worker protection laws.
Opponents of the measure argue that voters would be forced to consider a range of separate areas of employment law that should not be bundled together. However, one justice questioned whether the measure could be viewed as addressing a single policy proposal regarding the employment status of app drivers.
The justices also seemed likely to dismiss a claim from a conservative group that the state attorney general erroneously certified a competing measure for the ballot. This measure, supported by the Service Employees International Union's Local 32BJ, would allow Uber and Lyft drivers to unionize under state oversight.
A trial is scheduled for May 13 in a 2020 lawsuit by the state's attorney general, who accuses Uber and Lyft of misclassifying their drivers as contractors. If the industry fails in court and at the ballot box, Uber and Lyft could face a significant overhaul of their business model.
Uber, Lyft, Instacart, and DoorDash have collectively spent millions to support a ballot proposal that would solidify the status of their drivers as contractors under state law, citing cost savings compared to hiring employees. The proposal also includes provisions such as setting an earnings floor for app-based drivers and providing them healthcare stipends, occupational accident insurance, and paid sick time.
The court had previously blocked a similar industry-backed ballot measure in 2022 over a provision it deemed unrelated. To increase their chances this time, the group is gathering signatures for five versions of the ballot question, intending to submit only one before the July 3 deadline.
Justice Kafker raised concerns about a provision in the broadest version that would require drivers claiming they were fired for discriminatory reasons to appeal to the employer, suggesting that those accused of discrimination should not decide on their cases.
A ruling is expected before the deadline for submitting signatures to the secretary of state.