The Brief

Uber today lost its long-running attempt to overturn a California law that would require it to provide employment rights to its drivers and delivery workers.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could have major implications — depending what the state Supreme Court decides in a separate but related case.

Uber and Postmates, a food-delivery platform Uber now owns, alleged that Assembly Bill 5 violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the state and U.S. constitutions. AB 5 requires ride-hailing and delivery companies to treat their workers as employees instead of independent contractors and codifies the so-called ABC test to determine which workers should receive benefits. Under the law, other gig companies are subject to a different test, which Uber and Postmates claimed was unfair.

The companies sued and sought an injunction against the law that took effect at the beginning of 2020. Last year, a three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit sided with Uber and revived the case, which had been previously dismissed by a federal judge.

But writing for the full 11-judge appeals court today, Judge Jacqueline Nguyen said there are “plausible reasons” for treating Uber differently from other types of companies that use gig workers, such as Wag, a platform that connects dog owners and dog walkers, because the Legislature “perceived transportation and delivery companies as the most significant perpetrators of the problem it sought to address — worker misclassification.”

More than 1.4 million workers in California do app-based driving and delivery work for big gig companies such as Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart, according to the industry’s latest estimates.

Lorena Gonzalez, chief officer of the California Labor Federation and the former state lawmaker who authored AB 5, said in a statement today: “This is a victory for all workers in the state, but especially the chronically misclassified workers in rideshare and delivery jobs. Now, we must continue to seek ways to enforce this law.”

The ruling means “the Legislature can continue to make laws that impact companies differently if the decision to do so is rational, without being concerned that such laws would violate the constitutional rights of the corporation,” said Veena Dubal, a UC Irvine law professor whose research centers on labor and inequality. “This is particularly important because so many sectors are now concentrated by two or three large companies.”

The decision also is significant because the California Supreme Court in May heard oral arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 22, the initiative the gig industry put on the ballot in 2020, and which a majority of California voters approved. Prop. 22 exempted Uber and other companies such as Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart from AB 5, allowing them to continue to treat their workers as independent contractors while giving them some new benefits they did not have before, such as guaranteed minimum earnings.

Uber is counting on the state’s highest court to uphold Prop. 22, on which it spent more than $57 million out of the about $200 million the gig industry put into the campaign. It contends AB 5 threatens the “flexible work opportunities” that many Californians want.

Theane Evangelis, a lawyer for Uber, in an emailed statement today reiterated the company’s position that “with AB 5 the Legislature unfairly targeted my clients out of animus rather than reason.” Uber had argued that AB 5 has many exemptions for companies that pay workers in different industries. They include live performers, music professionals, real estate appraisers and more.

But William Gould, professor emeritus at Stanford Law School and a former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, called the opinion “eminently sensible.” Gould said the court “correctly holds that Uber and others may be covered where the Legislature deems them to be disproportionately responsible for inequality in the gig economy.”

If Prop. 22 is upheld, it would be a huge victory for Uber and the other big gig companies, but today’s ruling means they would still be on the hook in any cases where they are found to have violated laws related to worker classification before Prop. 22 took effect. In the appeals court decision, Nguyen referred to “ongoing state enforcement actions seeking retrospective relief, including civil penalties,” against Uber and Postmates.

If Prop. 22 is thrown out, the appeals court ruling means “these companies do not have this case to fall back on to exempt themselves from having to provide basic employment protections,” Dubal said.

The state Supreme Court files its written opinion within 90 days of oral argument, so its decision could come by the end of August.

Yes, we did just wrap up the primary election, but believe us — November will be here before you know it.

There will be new ballot measures to vote on in L.A. County, and now is the time they're being finalized.

Local jurisdictions (county, city, school and district) have until Aug. 7 to get them completed, according to Mike Sanchez, a spokesperson at the L.A. County Registrar's Office.

Here’s what we know so far about what’s coming.

LA County ballot measures

Enshrining LA County’s ethics commission

Two years ago, voters approved Measure G — a batch of historic county government reforms that included establishing an independent ethics commission and compliance office by 2026.

That's now happening — the Board of Supervisors recently approved an ordinance to create it, and officials are getting into the nuts and bolts of how it would work.

The seven-member commission’s job will be enforcing ethics laws, conducting investigations and levying penalties for violations. Three of the members will be appointed by elected officials, with the rest coming from a public application process.

There are concerns about the body's independence, however, and a Governance Reform Task Force set up to guide Measure G’s implementation has recommended permanently safeguarding its autonomy by enshrining it into the county charter.

That needs voter approval — hence, the new measure on the books in November, which would add the ethics commission, compliance office and governing procedures to the charter.

While the official ballot language hasn’t been made public yet, it’s expected to mirror the ordinance that directed its creation.

The board is also using this opportunity to correct a mistake. Back in 2025, after voters approved Measure G, county officials discovered an “administrative error.” The structure inadvertently put a different measure, Measure J, on the chopping block, which mandates funding for community investment and alternatives to incarceration. So the board is adding additional language that would lock the county into spending money on those issues.

This ballot measure is still pending approval from the Board of Supervisors. That’s expected to come later this month.

The Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration in Los Angeles.

(

Samanta Helou Hernandez

/

LAist

)

Binding arbitration in LA County labor disputes

This is a charter amendment that would require binding arbitration in certain labor disputes between the county and public safety organizations, if passed.

It would cover unions representing firefighters, deputy sheriffs, sworn law enforcement supervisors and lifeguards, among other employees.

Currently, when disputes can’t be resolved, the county can implement its best and final offer, even if the union disagrees with it. This creates a “challenging dynamic,” according to Supervisor Lindsey Horvath’s motion for the measure, because public safety employees have important roles and can’t strike under California law.

That power imbalance is what this measure aims to equalize.

Under the terms, a three-member arbiter panel would decide disputes about working conditions — such as wages and working hours — that the county and union haven’t been able to settle. Each party would be able to appoint one arbitrator, and the third would be picked by both parties. The county and union would be required to share the costs.

This measure would need a simple majority to pass.

City of LA ballot measures

Funding the city of LA’s fire department

The L.A. Fire Department’s labor union, United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, sponsored this initiative, which was approved by the L.A. City Council last month. It proposes a half-cent sales tax to fund the LAFD.

This would raise the city’s sales tax to 10.25%. If approved by voters, it’s expected to raise $345 million in its first year. That money would be spent on things like hiring new firefighters, building stations and brush clearance.

United Firefighters says it’s needed because the department is too small to appropriately serve 4 million residents.

“Due to decades of underinvestment, the LAFD currently operates with the same number of firefighters as in the 1960s, six fewer stations and five times the call load,” the union previously said in a statement.

The measure would require a simple majority to pass. If approved, the tax would be in effect until repealed.

A Los Angeles City Council meeting April 2, 2025.

(

Samanta Helou Hernandez

/

LAist

)

Reforming the LA city charter

Charter reform has been a big talking point in L.A. ever since the 2022 leaked-tapes scandal at City Hall — and now, we’re seeing the outcomes.

While the City Council controversially opted to forgo a slate of major changes on this year’s ballot, including ones on LAPD oversight and expanding the City Council, we still have six ballot measures proposing reforms.

The language of these measures is still being finalized, according to Josué Marcus, a spokesperson at the City Clerk’s Office. Here’s a peek at what they include:

• Modifying ethics and campaign finance rules
• Doubling the Recreation and Parks Department’s budget percentage over time
• Moving the city of L.A. to a two-year budget cycle instead of one-year
• Removing a restriction that prohibits the city from taking part in commercial activities
• Changing contracting rules about accepting the lowest bidders
• Requiring a capital infrastructure plan

We should know more about these measures soon. In the meantime, you can keep an eye out for the specifics on the city’s elections website here.

If you're online, anywhere adjacent to the World Cup, you'll see that the Argentina team, which will play England in the semifinals Wednesday, is attracting a lot of criticism.

It can be largely grouped into two categories: soccer and culture. In soccer, Argentina’s comeback win against Egypt last week prompted accusations, including from Egypt’s head coach, that the FIFA referees in that match favored Argentina.

Meanwhile, cultural clichés online accuse Argentines of being arrogant and looking down on other Latin Americans.

“I get sad,  I must say, that when I see that, it hurts me a little bit, to be honest,” said San Fernando Valley resident Roxana Lissa. She was born and raised in Argentina and moved to the U.S. more than 30 years ago.

But she's used to it.

“The thing about Argentines is we have such thick skin,” Lissa said.

California’s Argentine population has grown in the past couple of decades. The state is now home to the second-largest concentration of Argentines in the U.S. after Florida.

Exclusion by other Latinos

The negative comments are not new, but social media has fueled them into a firestorm.

Some Argentines in Southern California say they’ve not seen negativity this bad against their culture before.

Mariana Ferrero, who moved to the U.S. from Argentina when she was 13 years old, said the comments are opening old wounds of exclusion by other Latino immigrants in Southern California.

“What bothers me is [the criticism] goes beyond soccer. It's more of saying, "Oh, you're Argentinian. You're not a real Latina,'” Ferrero said.

She says many Latinos assume she’s privileged because she’s lighter skinned.

But Ferrero says her background is not like that at all. Argentina’s struggling economy led Ferrero’s parents to leave their home, their language and their country.

“We packed up. We came here. We lived with nothing in a tiny one-bedroom apartment, worked really hard, odd jobs,” she said.

Ferrero has some explanation for the hostility, however.

“I think some of it is just a perception that we come from a country that tends to be proud and tends to be loud and tends to be boisterous about our wins and about our accomplishments. And let me tell you, there's not many of them,” Ferrero said.

Since soccer prowess is one of those few wins, she says she and other Argentines are going to take this World Cup as an opportunity to be loud and proud.

IRL people love Argentines

Ferrero and Lissa say people who’ve visited Argentina gush to them about the warmth and hospitality of its people and the country’s beauty. And few people question that Argentina soccer star Lionel Messi is one of the greatest soccer players of all time.

“I was wearing my Argentina jersey,” Lissa said of a visit during the World Cup to L.A.’s Guelaguetza Oaxacan restaurant to watch Mexico play.

“People were coming to me and saying, 'I love Messi. I love Messi.' And I felt for the first time, 'Damn, I'm not being criticized,'” she said.

Pablo Baler, a professor of Latin American literature at CSU L.A., says the disconnect during this World Cup may be that people don’t believe Argentina represents the underdog soccer nations of Latin America anymore.

“At times, [the team] can feel more like a corporation than a national team, but the country it represents was in many ways the victim of the same imperial powers now competing for the title: France, England and Spain,” he said.

Baler grew up in Argentina and has many Latin American friends. He doesn’t believe the negativity against his homeland will tarnish its reputation. He said a Nicaraguan friend said to him this week that he’s proud Argentina made it to the World Cup semifinals because the team is “one of us.”

Topline

The background: In June, the City Council voted to establish the moratorium as city staff drafted a proposal for a permanent citywide ban. At the time, the moratorium was authorized for 45 days.

The issue first made its way to city hall earlier this year after a group of neighbors raised concerns that a proposed new In-N-Out in Culver City could hurt air quality and create safety issues for pedestrians.

Status of the proposed ban: Culver City staff wrote in a report to City Council this week that they’ve begun drafting a potential permanent ban on new drive-thrus citywide.

The proposal will first go to the city’s planning commission, a five-person body that makes recommendations to the City Council on development and zoning matters in the city, then head to the City Council for a final vote. Those dates have not yet been set.

One councilmember left door open for a different approach: At Monday’s meeting, Councilmember Albert Vera, who was among the four votes supporting the moratorium extension, said he would be open to seeing recommendations from the planning commission that don’t ban drive-thrus citywide outright.

The contractor building the long-awaited LAX People Mover project has filed a lawsuit alleging the city of L.A. breached its contract in several disputes.

In the suit, filed with the L.A. County Superior Court on July 9, LINXS alleges the city is misplacing blame in construction-related disputes and refusing to extend contract deadlines. LINXS also alleges it’s owed additional payment for the work as a result of the delays.

The project, a 2.25-mile-long elevated train designed to transport riders between airport terminals and local transit, is currently undergoing testing. Work on the train is scheduled to be complete “in a few months,” according to a June interview with Los Angeles World Airports CEO John Ackerman on the L.A. in a Minute podcast.

Chief among the disputes detailed in the lawsuit is one involving repairs to faulty electrical equipment in the system that powers the train, resulting in testing delays last year. LAist reported on this dispute last November and in April.

A spokesperson for LINXS said it has attempted to engage in “extensive good-faith efforts over the past two years” to resolve the ongoing contractual disputes.

A spokesperson for Los Angeles World Airports, the city agency that manages LAX, said the agency does not comment on pending litigation. They added that the agency remains committed to “delivering a safe, durable and reliable” train as soon as possible.

The L.A. City Attorney’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In its lawsuit, LINXS said that by not granting the contractor’s compensation and time-extension requests, the city is attempting to evade accountability for the delayed train, which was once expected to open in 2023 and is nearly a billion dollars over budget.

The contractor warned in its lawsuit that without an extension of contract deadlines, it might be forced to repay lenders who financed the project as soon as this fall. In that case, the contractor said in its lawsuit that it could become “insolvent and unable to perform,” adding that possibility would have “catastrophic consequences.”

Dispute over metering cabinet

Last February, staff from Los Angeles World Airports and the city’s Department of Water and Power directed LINXS to repair equipment in a metering cabinet that had degraded due to moisture and debris, as LAist previously reported.

LINXS completed the repair work, which required power to be partially shut down between February and July 2025. That temporary power disruption delayed critical testing of the technology that allows for central control of the People Mover’s systems.

LINXS said last year, and also in the current lawsuit, that the repair work is not in its scope of work. As a result, the contractor has said it's owed compensation and a minimum of a 141-day extension to complete construction.

“Since then, [Los Angeles World Airports] has stonewalled the discussions of [LINXS’] compensation and a time extension,” the contractor alleges in its lawsuit.

LINXS, citing information it received from a public records request, alleges the issue stemmed from an instance where LADWP opened the metering cabinet in September 2024 to rectify design issues with the equipment contained in it.

Whereas past disputes between LINXS and the airport were resolved through settlements that have so far totaled hundreds of millions of dollars and resulted in schedule extensions, the dispute over maintaining electrical equipment has been uniquely contentious.

“Other relief events that we’ve dealt with up to this point … we could agree there were some things that were not totally within LINXS’ control,” Jake Adams, an airport executive who is overseeing $5.5 billion in LAX upgrades, said in an interview with LAist in April. “This relief event is very different. We believe there is absolutely no merit to this claim.”

The lawsuit also alleges that the contractor is owed additional time and money for several other ongoing disputes, including that Los Angeles World Airports is refusing to sign a power agreement with LADWP for solar panels installed as part of the People Mover project and that workers on separate airport projects have “demolished” work LINXS completed for the train.

What’s the status of the People Mover?

The People Mover is operating in a testing phase where it simulates how the train will operate when it begins shuttling travelers between airport terminals and the L.A. Metro system.

The testing of the train won’t be impacted by the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Los Angeles World Airports told LAist.

A hearing on the case filed last week has been scheduled for December, according to the L.A. County Superior Court’s website.