Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court granted review in Castellanos v. State of California, apparently to address various constitutional attacks on Proposition 22, the 2020 initiative — heavily financed by Uber and Lyft — that classifies app-based drivers as independent contractors instead of employees.
Today the court limited briefing and argument (see rule 8.516(a)(1)) to one constitutional issue: “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 and therefore require that Proposition 22, by its own terms, be deemed invalid in its entirety?” (Links added.)
