Local News

Massachusetts high court tosses gig worker ballot measures

"The future of these services and the drivers who earn on them is now in jeopardy."

By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press and Christopher Gavin

updated on June 14, 2022

3 minutes to read

BOSTON (AP) — The highest court in Massachusetts ruled Tuesday that two state ballot questions asking voters whether drivers for app-based ride-hailing companies should be considered contractors, instead of employees, are unconstitutional.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the ballot questions should not have been certified by the state attorney general and are not suitable to be placed on the ballot.

A coalition of app-based businesses including Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart backed the measures, which are virtually the same. They argued that the changes would have granted new benefits for workers while stopping short of declaring them employees.

Critics, including labor unions, argued the measure would have created a “second class” status for drivers while allowing big tech companies to avoid taxes.

A dozen Massachusetts voters challenged the certification, saying they violate the state constitution, which says petitions must contain only related or mutually dependent subjects, and because the attorney general’s summaries of the proposals does not explain how they would change existing law, if approved.

“We conclude that the petitions contain at least two substantively distinct policy decisions, one of which is buried in obscure language at the end of the petitions, and thus fail” the constitution’s related subjects requirement, the court wrote.

“As such, the Attorney General’s decision to certify the petitions was in error, and accordingly the petitions may not be placed on the ballot,” the high court wrote.

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin told Boston.com that, in his view, the court called out the coalition of businesses for “basically trying to play a dirty trick on the voters.”

If the ballot question moved forward and passed, legal liability would have been placed solely on the independent contractors or employees, Galvin said.

If, for example a pedestrian was injured by a driver, the law would have barred lawsuits from being filed against a company, according to Galvin.

“This [ballot question initiative] was a very clear effort to get what they couldn’t get from the legislative process by masking this in terms of the worker rights or the flexibility of employees’ schedules or workers’ schedules, when in point of fact, they have a much greater agenda which is to limit their liability,” Galvin said.

Conor Yunits, a spokesperson for the ride-booking company campaign, said a majority of Massachusetts voters and rideshare and delivery drivers would have voted for the ballot question.

“That’s exactly why opponents resorted to litigation to subvert the democratic process and deny voters the right to make their own decision,” Yunits said in a written statement.

“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,” he added.

Critics of the proposed ballot questions hailed the ruling.

“Millions of Massachusetts drivers, passengers, and taxpayers can rest easier knowing that this unconstitutional bid by Big Tech CEOs to manipulate Massachusetts law has been struck down by the Supreme Judicial Court,” said Wes McEnany, a spokesperson for opponents of the measures.

Given the national debate over the relationship ride-hailing workers have, or should have, with their companies, Galvin said he sees the court’s ruling as a precedent the rest of the country could follow.

“I think the fact that (the court has) so clearly called this out suggests that this decision is going to be used, not just on ballot questions around the country, but I think it’s also going to set the standard for how you define these relationships,” he said. “And I think it’s a very significant blow to those who are arguing that no, it’s just a matter of, you know, how you define the relationship.

“The court was not going to tolerate what they perceived as a deceptive statement on what the relationship would be,” he added.