The Brief

The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next Tuesday in a case that could change the fate of more than 1 million gig workers in the state — and perhaps the way we hail rides, order takeout or get groceries delivered.

Four years ago, voters approved Proposition 22, a ballot measure sponsored by Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart that allowed the companies to continue to treat their ride-hailing drivers and delivery workers as independent contractors. Prop. 22 was the industry’s response to Assembly Bill 5, a state law that codified a state Supreme Court decision that would have required the companies to classify those workers as employees.

Treating gig workers as independent contractors is central to the business model of the California-based companies, the middlemen that gave rise to the on-demand, app-based gig economy that has permeated our culture. The companies are fighting to hang on to that model, saying it helps them provide gig workers with flexible schedules. Critics say it lets the companies avoid paying employment taxes and shift financial responsibility to their workers and customers, plus governments.

In 2021, a Superior Court judge invalidated Prop. 22, saying it limits the Legislature’s constitutional power to create and enforce a complete workers’ compensation system because it declares gig workers independent contractors ineligible for the benefit. While the state Supreme Court will be considering this narrow issue, because of a clause in the initiative, it’s possible the whole law will be thrown out because of it.

The gig companies appealed the judge’s decision, and a state appeals court ruled 2 to 1 in their favor last year. SEIU California then appealed that decision, and the state’s highest court agreed to hear the case.

Fifty-eight percent of voters passed Prop. 22 after gig companies spent more than $200 million on the campaign. After it became law, app-based platform workers became eligible for some benefits, such as guaranteed weekly earnings of 120% of minimum wage, health care stipends, and occupational-accident and accidental-death insurance.

Although industry-backed polls show many gig workers voted for Prop. 22 and have benefited from some of its provisions, gig workers continue to complain about their pay and working conditions.

In April, drivers protested, as they have many times, at Uber and Lyft headquarters in San Francisco. They said they were there because of low wages, safety concerns and “deactivations” — getting kicked off the apps and losing their ability to work, sometimes suddenly and without knowing why.

“It’s hard for drivers to make ends meet,” said Cesar Palancares, a field organizer for Bay Area-based worker-advocacy groups Gig Workers Rising and Working Partnerships USA, and a leader of the protests. Nowadays, he said “drivers often have to work 12 hours to earn what they used to earn working six or seven hours.”

Palancares said pay is still low because workers’ eligibility for the earnings guarantee is based on the time they agree to take on a gig and the time they spend on that ride or delivery, but not on the time they spend waiting for a gig.

Los Angeles-based Rideshare Drivers United is so concerned about gig-worker pay that it plans to push for pay standards, like those in New York City and Seattle, even if Prop. 22 is overturned.

“We want to build pay regulation on top of labor rights, specifically catering to how we work in this industry,” said Nicole Moore, president of Rideshare Drivers United, which plans to advocate for legislation or ordinances that would establish a rate card with a minimum rate based on miles and minutes driven.

“What we’ve learned from NYC is you can set a rate card, and you can have data from the companies that ensures that pay is high enough so your expenses are being covered,” Moore said.

The gig industry’s current estimates for average worker earnings differ widely from labor groups’ estimates: A DoorDash spokesperson said delivery workers’ average earnings were $36 an hour last year; an Uber spokesperson said its drivers’ average earnings were $33 “per utilized hour” as of the fourth quarter of last year. Industry-wide, Molly Weedn, a spokesperson for Protect App-Based Drivers + Services, said that in 2022, California drivers earned an average of $34.46 per “active hour,” including tips, an increase of 26% compared with pre-Prop. 22 times.

But labor groups and academics have long disputed those figures, including in the legal briefs they submitted ahead of the Supreme Court hearing, because companies do not count the time gig workers wait for an actual ride or delivery. They also say the industry figures don’t factor in workers’ costs for fuel, maintaining their vehicles, health care costs — not all gig workers are eligible for the stipends — and more. A study by National Equity Atlas and others, done in 2021 after Prop. 22 took effect, found that the workers’ average earnings were as little as $6.20 an hour.

Oral arguments’ focus

The SEIU and the four gig-worker plaintiffs will argue that the state constitution grants the Legislature “unlimited power to enforce a complete workers’ compensation system.” The Legislature already spoke when it passed AB 5, they say. So they contend that “the Legislature’s exercise of that power can be withdrawn only by a constitutional amendment.”

The interveners and appellants — the gig companies and the state, which is required to defend the law — will argue that the Legislature’s “plenary,” or absolute, power over workers’ comp is not exclusive. And they will say no subject is beyond the scope of the initiative process.

“The legal issue is actually pretty straightforward,” said Kurt Oneto, a lawyer for the gig companies. Oneto said a constitutional amendment adopted by California voters in 1918 that gave the Legislature power over workers’ comp “unlimited by any provision” in the constitution was “only enacted to prevent courts from invalidating workers’ comp” — not to limit voters’ power over it.

This decision could set a national precedent in the nagging issue of worker classification. So despite the narrow focus of what the Supreme Court is set to consider, a wide array of legal briefs in the case rehash the pros and cons of the gig economy.

Prop. 22 proponents’ arguments

Those urging the court to uphold Prop. 22 stress that the Legislature doesn’t have exclusive reign over workers’ comp. They say the people — through the ballot initiative — have just as much say. They also say the gig economy helps marginalized workers and communities.

• Former state Sens. Robert Timothy Leslie and Stephen James Peace: Based on their experience as lawmakers, they say “the state Legislature is far from powerless when it comes to amending an initiative” and that lawmakers can amend Prop. 22 if they want.
• David A. Carrillo and Stephen M. Duvernay (California constitution scholars): “Excluding workers’ compensation (or any subject) would partly invalidate the electorate’s lawmaking power by creating a new subject matter exemption from the initiative.”
• Crum & Forster, a holding company of various insurance underwriting companies: Occupational accident insurance, which is based on individual use, is cheaper to provide than full workers’ comp, which is charged per employee and based on a formula. The former makes more sense for gig workers because many of them work part time. “Because the risks confronted by app-based drivers are few and easily defined, premiums need not reflect potential exposure to the myriad risks confronted by employees working in offices, factories, warehouses, agriculture, and other occupations.”  
• Independent Drivers Alliance of California: This group of 400 gig workers said the benefits under Prop. 22 are “something that many of them have come to expect and even need.” 
• Citizens in Charge and The Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California: “Large corporations are not the only type of special interest that can forestall the will of the People.” They say the SEIU is a special interest that influenced the Legislature to pass AB 5.
• California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, NAACP California Hawaii State Conference, National Action Network Los Angeles, National Action Network Sacramento Chapter Inc., and National Diversity Coalition: The independent contractor model provides not just marginalized workers with earning opportunities, it also helps “the provision of transportation, food, and delivery services to communities of color that have been historically underserved.” If Prop. 22 is overturned, they say gig companies will reduce the number of gig workers on their platforms and there will be fewer earning opportunities for “communities of color,” which according to a Pew survey are “more likely to have earned money in the gig economy than White counterparts.” 

Prop. 22 opponents’ arguments

Those asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional warn of a slippery slope. They say allowing corporations to carve out their own labor laws could lead to a continued gig-ification of work in other industries, which will affect not just the workers who will largely be without a safety net, but also the government and the rest of society.

• State Sen. Dave Cortese and Assemblymember Liz Ortega: The “minimal insurance benefits” offered by Prop. 22 — occupational accident insurance and accidental death insurance — are not a complete workers’ comp system, and “the wholesale removal of app-based drivers from the system established by the Legislature over the past century runs contrary” to the power the state constitution gives lawmakers to enforce a complete workers’ comp system.
• California Applicants’ Attorneys Association: The group also said the occupational accident insurance offered under Prop. 22 is limited compared to what workers’ comp offers: medical treatment; temporary or permanent payments depending on the injury; and supplemental job retraining benefits. “The likely result is more injured app-based drivers will seek benefits through public systems” like state or federal disability systems.
• City and County of San Francisco, the City of Oakland, the City of San Diego, and the County of Santa Clara: “The wholesale elimination of worker protection laws (including minimum wage protections for all hours worked, overtime, and expense reimbursement laws) can mean the difference between needing to visit a food pantry or not.” The municipalities say they administer such programs, and therefore taxpayers end up subsidizing “what the law asks employers to contribute through wages and benefits.”
• Law professors Sameer Ashar, Veena Dubal, Catherine Fisk, Charlotte Garden, Joseph Grodin, William B. Gould IV, Stephen Lee, Leticia Saucedo, Reuel Schiller, Katherine Stone, and Noah D. Zatz: This group writes that the law lacks a “provision for an administrative body or system to adjudicate claims or disputes. Instead, as is well-known, they are consigned to asserting their claims in the companies’ secret arbitration system.”
• National Employment Law Project, California Labor Federation, Rideshare Drivers United, Gig Workers Rising, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, PowerSwitch Action, Worksafe, Action Center on Race & the Economy, the Economic Policy Institute, Bet Tzedek, and the California Immigrant Policy Center: Gig workers have few legal protections against opaque, “powerful, algorithmically-driven pay systems, and ‘the possibility remains,’ in the words of one scholar, that on-demand companies… (are offering) vulnerable workers lower wages based on their willingness to accept work at lower prices.” They cite a recent Uber earnings call during which its CEO said the company is “offering the right trip at the right price to the right driver.” Along the same lines, the fact that gig workers are from marginalized groups and communities is unsurprising, they say: “It is no accident that Prop. 22 reinforces and legalizes a second-tier workforce (composed) disproportionately of people of color.” They also cite federal data that shows app-based driving is “one of the most dangerous jobs in America” that includes risks of violence, harassment, injuries and even death on the job.
• Teamsters Locals 396, 542 And 848 and Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO: “Already, a growing number of secure jobs across the state are being replaced by app-based drivers — including jobs where Amici Curiae have fought for decades to ensure a living wage and strong benefits.” Those include delivery drivers formerly employed by Albertsons.

This story was originally published by The LA Local on Feb. 9, 2026.

Long-discussed improvement projects in and around Koreatown — some first proposed more than a decade ago — are beginning to take shape as L.A. moves closer to hosting the 2028 Summer Olympics.

Among them are the Olympic Gateway at Olympic Boulevard and Normandie Avenue, pedestrian improvements near the Koreatown Senior and Community Center and a stormwater capture project connected to MacArthur Park.

Koreatown Gateway

Picture a roughly 50-foot gateway structure with LED lighting at the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Normandie Avenue.

Construction on the Olympic Gateway, a project first proposed in 2008, is expected to begin in the fall after years of delays tied largely to funding.

Steve Kang, president of the L.A. Board of Public Works, said the project has been divided into two phases to address rising material costs. The first part was authorized late last year, which included ordering materials to erect the gateway, Kang said.

“The second phase is when all the materials arrive and are assembled, will be to break ground and complete construction,” Kang said.

The city is aiming to break ground by early fall.

“What has been the biggest challenge is, because of the tariffs, steel prices have gone up significantly,” Kang said. “That is having some impact on the overall budget and that’s why we bifurcated the project into two phases so that we keep the project momentum going.”

The project’s cost has increased to nearly $6 million, and about $2.6 million has been raised so far. Kang said funding challenges were the primary reason the project stalled for years.

“The Korean American community and the Koreatown community have been advocating for a gateway similar to that of Chinatown and other ethnic communities for a long time,” he said.

He also cited complications tied to the site, including the proximity of an elementary school.

PUB Construction CEO Chris Yi, who’s overseeing the project, said he’s excited to finally have a landmark that represents the Korean community.

Pedestrian improvements near the Koreatown Senior and Community Center

At the same intersection, the city is moving forward with a pedestrian improvement project focused on the sidewalks surrounding Dawooljeong, a traditional Korean pavilion on the northeast corner of Olympic Boulevard and Normandie Avenue.

The L.A. City Public Works Commission recently selected the contractor for the project, which is expected to cost around $285,000.

The project will add two benches, two trash receptacles, four trees and five tree uplights, which are lights aimed up at a tree. Construction is expected to take about 180 days, with completion planned within the 2026 calendar year.

“It’s really going to beautify that corner of that intersection,” said Kang.

The area was prioritized in part because of the nearby senior center and frequent foot traffic by older residents. The city plans to coordinate construction to avoid disrupting the annual L.A. Korean Festival held each fall near Normandie Avenue.

MacArthur Park stormwater capture project

Artist’s rendering for the MacArthur Lake Stormwater Capture Project, slated to be completed before the 2028 Summer Olympics.

(

Rendering courtesy Studio-MLA

)

Put an asterisk next to this project, because even if it starts tomorrow, it will be cutting it close to the completion date.

This project would change the look of MacArthur Park Lake, and the construction would likely stretch over a roughly 2 1/2-year period.

The stormwater capture and treatment project is designed to divert and treat stormwater from a roughly 200-acre drainage area before it reaches Ballona Creek.

Stormwater will flow through a pretreatment system, before arriving at a treatment unit in MacArthur Park and either diverted into the park’s lake or returned to the storm drain system. The project is intended to reduce pollutant loads entering Ballona Creek and Santa Monica Bay and to offset potable water used to refill the lake. Funding for the project will come from a $20 million Measure W allocation, along with Proposition K, and the Stormwater Pollution Abatement (SPA) Fund, according to city reports.

The final cost for the project has not been nailed down, and the project is expected to take roughly 30 months, according to the city’s latest estimates. The goal was to have the project complete before the Olympics, Kang said, but that timeline now appears unlikely, as work is anticipated to begin this summer.

Construction will take place in the southern section of MacArthur Park and along portions of 7th Street, Lake Street, Grand View Street and an adjacent alley. A pathway and access ramp along 7th Street will be temporarily removed and rebuilt to allow maintenance access. Plans also include a new pedestrian bridge along the southern edge of the park.

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked California from enforcing a new law that would have banned federal immigration agents from wearing masks during immigration sweeps.

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder ruled that the state could not enforce the facial-covering provision of SB 627, the No Secret Police Act, while a legal challenge brought by the federal government moved forward. That lawsuit argued that SB 627 conflicted with federal authority and would improperly limit how federal agents could do their jobs.

The backstory

The law banning facial coverings took effect Jan. 1 and had already sparked confusion and backlash in Los Angeles after Los Angeles Police Department Chief Jim McDonnell said officers would not enforce the ban. McDonnell called the law bad policy and said enforcing it could put officers and the public at risk.

McDonnell’s statements drew sharp criticism from local elected officials, the authors of the laws, and immigration law attorneys and advocates.

The federal government sued California last year, arguing that SB 627 and a second law, SB 805, known as the No Vigilantes Act, unlawfully interfered with federal immigration enforcement. SB 627 sought, in part, to make it illegal for most officers, including federal agents, to conduct law enforcement operations while wearing masks. SB 805, in part, required agents to identify themselves.

About the ruling

Snyder ruled that the mask ban inconsistently applied to some law enforcement officers and not others, which is one of the reasons why the judge temporarily blocked it.

Federal attorneys had argued that agents should be allowed to wear masks for their safety against harassment and assault, such as doxxing. Snyder disagreed, writing that while federal agents and other public figures face security risks, masks were not essential for performing their duties.

“Security concerns exist for federal law enforcement officers with and without masks,” Snyder wrote. “If anything, the Court finds that the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”

Reaction to the ruling

One of the law’s authors, Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, announced Monday afternoon that he would be introducing new legislation aimed at revising the original law to apply to state officers it previously exempted. He characterized the ruling as a win and vowed to continue efforts to unmask federal agents.

“Now that the Court has made clear that state officers must be included, I am immediately introducing new legislation to include state officers,” Wiener said in a prepared statement, adding: “We will unmask these thugs and hold them accountable. Full stop.”

What's next

Monday’s ruling still required enforcement of SB 627 and SB 805’s remaining provisions, including that officers identify themselves. It also protected the pathway for civilians to directly sue agents for misconduct.

This temporary order will remain in effect until the federal case is resolved. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment. This story will update if it does.

A new report from L.A. County offers a closer look at the economic damage to the region caused by federal immigration enforcement — and at the neighborhoods most affected.

The analysis, compiled by the Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity and Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, identified the neighborhoods hardest hit by ICE, and found that they were more economically precarious.

Researchers determined that the most targeted ZIP code in the county is 91402, which spans Mission Hills, Panorama City and North Hills in the San Fernando Valley.

The report, which was commissioned by the county Board of Supervisors, also found that many small businesses county-wide have lost revenue and customers since ICE ramped up its presence in Los Angeles last year.

The Department of Homeland Security has detained more than 10,000 people in the L.A.-area since June, according to numbers released in December. Its aggressive deportation campaign has altered daily life in Los Angeles, where nearly one in five people is undocumented or lives with someone who is undocumented.

The report lays out the ripple effect of that campaign on communities, local businesses, and workers, and its uneven influence on the region as a whole.

Vulnerable neighborhoods

The survey created an index of most vulnerable areas.

(

Courtesy L.A. County Economic Development Corporation

)

The report lays out the economic consequences for communities repeatedly hit by ICE sweeps.

The Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, a nonprofit research group, used census data and reports on detentions from the Los Angeles Rapid Response Network to assess how vulnerable each L.A. County ZIP code was to immigration enforcement.

Researchers looked at four other factors for each ZIP code: shares of foreign-born population from Latin America, renter households, Spanish-speaking households and non-citizen workforce.

The 10 most vulnerable ZIP codes, they determined, are primarily in working class, immigrant neighborhoods including Bell, Pico Rivera and Southeast L.A.

Researchers used employment data for the county and found that those ZIP codes were over-represented in industries, including manufacturing and retail, which have a significant number of undocumented workers. Businesses in these neighborhoods also tended to have fewer employees on average compared to the rest of the county, and employees were paid less.

"Taken together, these exhibits show that areas facing heightened immigration enforcement differ from the rest of Los Angeles County and appear more economically vulnerable," the report states.

Declined revenue, less foot traffic

Researchers also distributed a survey to small businesses county-wide to assess how federal immigration enforcement has affected the communities they operate in and their bottom lines since summer.

More than 200 small businesses responded. Most reported having fewer than 10 employees, and the majority were in industries like restaurants, retail, professional or personal services and manufacturing.

The majority of respondents — 82% — reported being negatively affected by federal immigration enforcement. Around half reported lost regular customers, less foot traffic or reduced daily sales. Around a quarter reported temporary closures due to concerns from community members.

Many surveyed business owners reported a climate of fear that has led people to stay home and avoid certain places altogether.

"Businesses reported that customers expressed fear about their location, that customers asked about safety in the neighborhood, and that customers avoided shopping or dining in their neighborhood," the report states.

Undocumented workers generate 17% of county's economic activity

No corner of Los Angeles is exempt to the ongoing immigration sweeps that have become a new reality for the region. Nearly 950,000 undocumented immigrants live in L.A. County, according to recent estimates. That's more than 9% of people in the county who lack legal status.

Undocumented workers also play a huge role in many of L.A.'s key industries. Recent research from the USC Equity Research Institute estimates that 37% of cleaning and maintenance workers and 25% of food preparation and service workers in L.A. County are undocumented.

The industry with the highest percentage of undocumented workers is construction, at 40%.

The county's undocumented population together generates just under $240 billion in economic output, according to the county's report. That's around 17% of the county's total economic activity.

The Los Angeles Unified School District rescheduled a Tuesday meeting where the board was expected to vote on layoffs as part of a larger plan to cut spending.

“The district has adjusted the date of the upcoming board meeting to ensure adequate time for preparation, public engagement, and responsible deliberation on items of significant impact and interest to our workforce and community,” an LAUSD spokesperson wrote in a statement to LAist.

They wrote the proposed reduction in force would be presented at a “future meeting.” Tuesday’s meeting is currently re-scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 17.

In a Friday letter, the unions representing LAUSD teachers, support staff and principals asked the board to delay the RIF vote until there is more information available about state funding and the public has more time to understand the proposed cuts.

“The notion that these are dark times for education requiring harmful cuts when there are record high state revenues is fearmongering,” the union letter reads.

LAUSD's financial challenges

For the last two years, the district has relied on reserves to backfill a multi-billion-dollar deficit. That deficit comes enrollment has declined steeply but expenses have not. There are more than 40% fewer students compared to the early 2000s. At the same time, as costs have increased, the district has not closed schools or significantly reduced staff. LAUSD hired more staff to support students during the pandemic, and now the federal relief dollars that initially funded those positions are gone.

The layoff vote is part of a $1.4 billion “fiscal stabilization plan.” Reductions in force are proposed for several categories including “un-funded” positions, central office staff, and at schools that support higher needs students.

LAUSD must vote on the reduction in force before March 15, the deadline for California school districts to notify staff they may be laid off.

 “It is not a foregone conclusion that people will lose jobs,” said Superintendent Alberto Carvalho at a Jan. 20 board meeting. For example, he said staff may be reassigned to vacant positions or given the opportunity to transfer to another school.

Where are the plan details?

At that same meeting, several board members pressed LAUSD staff for more details.

“When are we going to know the central office reductions? When are we going to know how many of those [there] are?” Karla Griego, a board member who represents District 5, asked, adding: “In a couple of weeks, I hope.”

“No, sooner,” responded Saman Bravo-Karimi, LAUSD's chief financial officer. Bravo-Karimi said the board would be provided with the number of positions impacted and their job classifications.

LAist requested information about the proposed layoffs last week and was told by a district spokesperson that the information would not be available until the board materials were publicly posted.

California’s Brown Act requires public agencies, including school districts, to post information about their regular meetings, including a description of each matter to be discussed, at least 72 hours in advance. Some agencies opt to publish the information even earlier.

No materials related to the Feb. 10 meeting were posted by that 72-hour deadline, and the meeting was rescheduled Sunday.

LAist reached out to Scott Schmerelson, LAUSD board president, who represents District 3, to discuss the delayed meeting. As of Monday evening Schmerelson had not responded.

Weigh in on LAUSD’s planned layoffs

The next meeting where the board could vote on the layoff proposal is Tuesday, Feb. 17. The agenda for the meeting must be publicly posted by Saturday, Feb. 14 at 10 a.m.— 72 hours before the start of the meeting. Sign up to get the agendas emailed here.