Several other states join the AB5 fight

John Kingston - Editor-At-Large - FreightWaves - Carle Place, NY New case is Olson vs. California Olson plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction was first rejected by a federal district court. But it then won a  partial victory when a federal appeals court ruled in March that the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California improperly dismissed the Olson claims that the patchwork of exceptions to AB5 granted by the state, including surgeons, translators and more than 100 occupations in between, denied Uber and Postmates equal protection of the law. The partisan divide on display in the attorneys general filing is concurrent to the debate in Washington over the nomination of Julie Su as secretary of labor and her role in the support and enforcement of AB5. (She is currently acting secretary.) Su was secretary of labor in California when AB5 was first implemented and her role and support has become a key issue. Among the arguments made by the attorneys general: State economic laws “receive substantial deference” under equal protection law. Even where a law results in “some inequality … legislatures are presumed to have acted within their constitutional power,” the attorneys general said, citing an earlier precedent.  The appellate panel “contradicts” earlier precedents in the 9th Circuit. It cited a precedent that said a legislature can take “piecemeal steps” even if it creates “some disparate treatment of affected parties.” As to the role of Gonzalez, who is not mentioned by name in the attorneys general filing, the attorneys general wrote that “the panel’s analysis suggests that legislators may not speak about or pass laws regulating industries they believe to be creating economic or social problems. But that is precisely legislators’ job. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices