• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Contact Us
  • Sponsor An Email
  • Post A Job
  • Merger & Acquisition Services

Agency Checklists

Massachusetts Insurance News & Job Opportunities

You are here: Home / Latest News / SJC Tosses App-Based Driver Ballot Question

SJC Tosses App-Based Driver Ballot Question

June 15, 2022 by State House News Service

Healey Lawsuit, Pending Bills Keep Issue Alive


JUNE 14, 2022…..The ballot question involving the status and benefits for app-based drivers will not go before voters this fall and Attorney General Maura Healey was wrong to certify it for the ballot, the Supreme Judicial Court said Tuesday in a ruling that abruptly put the brakes on an expensive and contentious campaign.

The state’s highest court determined that the proposed ballot question (there were technically two slightly different versions) contained “at least two substantively distinct policy decisions,” putting the proposal at odds with the state Constitution’s requirement that initiative petitions contain only related or mutually dependent subjects.

Writing for the SJC, Justice Scott Kafker said that most parts of the initiatives are devoted to defining a new contract-based relationship and benefits between drivers and the “network companies” that they connect consumers to. But, he said, “in vaguely worded provisions placed in a separate section near the end of the laws they propose, the petitions move beyond defining the relationship between app-based drivers and network companies and the associated statutory wages and benefits.”

Beyond the relationship between drivers and platforms, the proposed question would have also altered the relationship between platforms like Uber, Lyft, Instacart and DoorDash and the general public by changing the potential liability a transportation network company would have to someone injured by a driver. Whether the petitions would create a “liability shield” for the platforms was at the center of the oral arguments in the case last month.

“The petitions thus violate the related subjects requirement because they present voters with two substantively distinct policy decisions: one confined for the most part to the contract-based and voluntary relationship between app-based drivers and network companies; the other — couched in confusingly vague and open-ended provisions — apparently seeking to limit the network companies’ liability to third parties injured by app-based drivers’ tortious conduct,” Kafker wrote in the ruling that declares Healey’s certification of the two versions of the question to have been in error.

The SJC’s ruling brings an end to a campaign that pitted deep-pocketed tech companies that collectively spent more than $200 million in 2020 to successfully advocate for a similar measure in California, known as Proposition 22, against Massachusetts labor interests with powerful allies such as U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Roughly 200,000 workers in Massachusetts drive for rideshare platforms, and companies typically designate them as independent contractors.

Wes McEnany, who led the opposition campaign Massachusetts is Not For Sale, said Massachusetts drivers, passengers and taxpayers can “rest easier” knowing the SJC has struck down the proposed initiative petition.

“The ballot question was written not only as an attempt to reduce the rights of drivers, but also would have put the rights of passengers and the public at risk. The ballot question would have allowed these companies to avoid their most basic responsibilities to provide safe and reliable transportation service. We are excited to continue the work of our coalition to ensure that drivers, riders, and taxpayers are protected from the greed of Big Tech CEOs,” he said. “We commend the court for getting it right on this issue and we will remain vigilant and united against any further attempts by Big Tech to water down worker and consumer protections in Massachusetts or beyond.”

Flexibility and Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers, the industry-backed group that was behind the proposed ballot question, said that a “clear majority” of voters and drivers supported and would have passed the question had it gone to the ballot.

“That’s exactly why opponents resorted to litigation to subvert the democratic process and deny voters the right to make their own decision. The future of these services and the drivers who earn on them is now in jeopardy, and we hope the legislature will stand with the 80% of drivers who want flexibility and to remain independent contractors while having access to new benefits,” a spokesman for the group said in a statement.

When the SJC heard oral arguments in the case last month, the justices zeroed in on the argument that a provision of the initiative that states that drivers will not be considered “an employee or agent for all purposes with respect to his or her relationship with the network company” is meant to shield companies from vicarious liability.

Kafker, who wrote Tuesday’s ruling officially eliminating the question from November’s statewide ballot, was particularly engaged during oral arguments and suggested during the presentation that the initiative intermingled two unrelated issues.

“The public may feel one way about gig employees and how they’re compensated, whether they get all these benefits or not. But the public cares a lot about whether, if they’re in an accident with one of those people, are they limited to suing the poor guy who’s driving the car or can they sue the large corporation that can protect them and cover their damages? Those are two different policy questions,” Kafker said when the SJC heard the case. He echoed those comments in his opinion Tuesday.

Kafker also pointed out in his ruling that the petitions included language instructing that “any party seeking to establish that a person is not an app-based driver bears the burden of proof,” which he said would also make the petitions “go well beyond the contract-based relationship between network companies and app-based drivers, and the compensation and benefits associated therewith.”

Healey’s office, which declared both versions of the question acceptable for the ballot, had contended that “all the provisions of the petitions are germane to this purpose” of defining and regulating the contract-based relationship between network companies and app-based drivers. The AG’s office also disagreed that the language of the petitions would create a so-called liability shield.

But that disagreement over exactly how the petitions’ language would affect lawsuits and the rights of people to bring claims in Massachusetts was cited by Kafker as another reason that the question was not ready to go before voters this fall.

“When even lawyers and judges cannot be sure of the meaning of the contested provisions, it would be unfaithful to [Article] 48’s design to allow the petition to be presented to the voters, with all the attendant risks that voters will be confused and misled,” he wrote, referring to part of the Constitution that deals with initiative petitions.

Lawsuit and Legislation

The evaporation of the ballot question dealing with the classification, pay and benefits of drivers on platforms could make a two-year-old lawsuit that deals with similar themes more significant that it might have been if voters weighed in on the gig economy issues this fall.

In July 2020, Healey sued Uber and Lyft, alleging that the popular platforms were violating Massachusetts labor laws by treating their nearly 200,000 drivers like independent contractors rather than employees and that the companies were pocketing “hundreds of millions” of dollars every year that they should instead be paying in benefits and into state systems.

Healey’s lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment ordering the companies to comply with the state wage and hour laws, essentially attempting to get the courts to force the companies to comply with the types of state employment laws that their proposed ballot question sought to alter.

The lawsuit remains active and the next scheduled event in the proceedings is a conference planned for July 12, according to court records.

The issues at play in the proposed ballot question are also still alive on Beacon Hill. The Joint Committee on Financial Services has until June 30 to decide how to handle a bill (H 1234) filed by Rep. Mark Cusack of Braintree and Rep. Carlos Gonzalez of Springfield and supported by the industry players who backed the failed ballot question. That bill would establish portable benefit accounts for app-based drivers, but it faced stiff opposition from lawmakers and others who view it as a corporate attempt to render Healey’s lawsuit moot by rewriting state law.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: Latest News Tagged With: Agency Checklists, Mass. Insurance News, Massachusetts economic news, massachusetts insurance news, Massachusetts legislative news, New England Insurance News

Primary Sidebar

Sponsored

Latest Agency Sales

Marsh McLennan Agency Acquires Clark Insurance, Expands Presence in New England Region

Chicopee's White Birch Insurance Acquires Connecticut Agency

Chicopee’s White Birch Insurance Acquires Connecticut Agency

Patriot Growth Adds Two Employee Benefit Agencies in Massachusetts

Cross Insurance Acquires Two More Massachusetts Insurance Agencies & Opens A New Office in Newburyport

More Agency Sales

Career News

Liberty Mutual Insurance Appoints Monica Caldas to Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer

Liberty Mutual Insurance Appoints Monica Caldas to Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer

Liberty Mutual Insurance Appoints Melanie Foley to Executive Vice President and Chief Administration Officer

Liberty Mutual Insurance Appoints Melanie Foley to Executive Vice President and Chief Administration Officer

Boston-based insurtech Hi Marley Launches Marley Insights

Hi Marley Names Jonathan Tushman as Chief Product Officer

MAPFRE USA Names Dana Whiteley as SVP Business Development

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. Elects Francisco A. Aristeguieta to Board of Directors

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. Elects Francisco A. Aristeguieta to Board of Directors

In Memoriam

In Memoriam: Martha Hinkley, 1947-2022

In Memoriam: Daniel Rizzo, 1937-2022

In Memoriam: Bruce MacDonald 1935-2022

In Memoriam: Bruce MacDonald 1935-2022

CAR News

Right to Repair Group Files Amicus Brief & Urges Prompt Ruling on Ballot Question After 1 Year Delay

3rd Look 2022: The Massachusetts Private Passenger Auto Insurance Marketplace

3rd Look 2022: The MA Commercial Auto Insurance Marketplace

17 Bullet Points on The New Insurance Labor Rate Report

View More CAR News

Massachusetts Law Updates

New Rule Would Make Insurers Pay Insured For Preventing An Insured Loss

New Rule Would Make Insurers Pay Insured For Preventing An Insured Loss

A formal request by Federal Appeals Court to the SJC to decide if insurers owe costs to prevent a covered loss.

Front view of the Quincy Mass. Masonic Temple with Roman Columns

Confused Voicemail Leads to E&O and Coverage Suits

SJC Construed For 1st Time Meaning of “Doing Business As” In Relation to CGL Coverage.

5 Points On New Ruling: Unreasonable Storage Reduces ACV Payment

A short opinion with a disproportionate impact on first-party property damage total loss claims.

Agency Checklist article on COVID-19 Closings in Massachusetts

First State High-Court COVID-19 Decision On Business Interruption Claims

Dismissed by Superior Court, the restaurants took their appeal directly to the SJC.

More Mass. Law Updates

DOI News

The 2022 Home Insurance Report Part III | Policy Numbers by Massachusetts County

The 2022 MA Home Insurance Report Part II | MA FAIR Plan Review

The 2022 MA Home Insurance Report | Part I

Mass. Business Entity License Renewals on Hold

View More DOI News

Insurance Fraud

Quinn Group Ins. Owner’s Trial to Begin on Federal Benefit and Social Security Fraud Today

First Guilty Plea in No-Fault PIP Auto Insurance Fraud Scheme

GM Financial Will Pay Over $1.8 Million For GAP Coverage Refunds and Loan Violations

Insurance Agency To Pay $100,000 Fine And $515,000 In Restitution Under Consent Decree

More Insurance Fraud News

Footer

Agency Checklists

About us
Contact us

14 Summer Street
Suite 102
Malden, MA 02148
617-598-3800

Advertise on Agency Checklists

We offer a variety of ways to get help promote your company or product.

Announcements
Email Sponsorships
Partnerships
Custom Collaborations

*Affiliate Disclosure

Please note that any of Agency Checklists’ articles might contain one or more affiliate links. This means that any subsequent purchase resulting from these links may result in a commission for us, but at no additional cost to you. For example, as an Amazon Associate, Agency Checklists earns a commission from all qualifying purchases. By working with affiliates we can continue to keep Agency Checklists subscription free. Thank you for your support.

SEARCH OUR SITE

Explore Our Archives

Copyright © 2022 · Agency Checklists · All rights reserved.

 

Loading Comments...