• San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin is suing food delivery platform DoorDash for misclassifying its workers as contractors instead of employees.
• The civil lawsuit is one of the latest examples of how California’s AB5 law is upending tech companies’ reliance on the gig economy.
• The law went into effect in January and requires companies to treat their gig workers as employees, an action that the lawsuit is calling for DoorDash to take.
• A DoorDash spokesperson told Business Insider in an email that “today’s action seeks to disrupt the essential services Dashers provide.”
• Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin is suing food delivery platform DoorDash for “unlawful and unfair business practices.”

According to the complaint, pulled by Mission Local reporter Joe Eskenazi who first reported the news, the company has continued to classify its delivery workers as independent contractors instead of employees in direct defiance of a California law passed to prevent companies from doing just that. 

The state’s AB5 law went into effect in early January 2020 and strives not only to require companies to classify gig workers as employees but also to pay local, state, and federal taxes in accordance with that classification, as Eater SF notes. Boudin’s civil lawsuit is asking for DoorDash to classify its delivery workers, known as “Dashers,” as employees.

“Today’s action seeks to disrupt the essential services Dashers provide, stripping hundreds of thousands of students, teachers, parents, retirees and other Californians of valuable work opportunities, depriving local restaurants of desperately needed revenue, and making it more difficult for consumers to receive prepared food, groceries, and other essentials safely and reliably,” DoorDash Global Head of Public Policy Max Rettig said in an email to Business Insider. “We will fight to continue providing Dashers the flexible earning opportunities they say they want in these challenging times.”

San Francisco tech companies — including Uber, Postmates, and Lyft — and their business models rely heavily on gig workers. By doing so they’re able to avoid the higher costs that come with doling out wages and benefits typically reserved for full-time employees.

DoorDash — which filed to go public in late February — isn’t the only firm that has aggressively pushed back on AB5. The company and others like Lyft, Uber, and Instacart have poured millions into a campaign supporting a California ballot measure designed to reverse the AB5 law.

Ride-hailing giant Uber and food delivery company Postmates had also filed a lawsuit in December 2019 arguing that the law was unconstitutional.

But the gig workers are also going to court. 

As Business Insider’s Tyler Sonnemaker reported, drivers with Uber and Lyft in California filed claims against the companies in mid-April. The workers claimed they were owed at least $630 million in back wages as their employers continued to classify them as independent contractors, despite the passage of AB5.

NOW WATCH: Popular Videos from Insider Inc.

Loading…

The post San Francisco DA Is Suing DoorDash Over Employee Classification appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

SAN FRANCISCO — A lawsuit from the city of San Francisco accuses three Chinatown property owners of letting health and safety violations fester at their hotels, creating a public nuisance for residents and neighbors.

Jeff Appendrodt, Shailendra Devdhara, Kamlesh Patel and five associated limited liability companies are named in the suit, alongside the properties at 1449 Powell Street, 790 Vallejo Street and 912 Jackson Street.

Patel is not connected to the 1449 Powell Street property, but he is connected to the 790 Vallejo Street and 912 Jackson Street properties, having bought them in May 2023, according to the city.

“For years, we’ve tried to bring these properties into compliance and made only modest progress. Our warnings were ignored. Our violations were disregarded. That changes today,” said Department of Building Inspector (DBI) Director Patrick O’Riordan.

The issued Notices of Violations at the three properties stretch back as far as 2018. The city lists health, safety and building infractions, which include:

• broken and rusted plumbing
• exposed electrical wiring
• insect infestations
• mold and mildew
• unsanitary shared restrooms
• malfunctioning appliances
• lack of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors
• seismic safety risks
• insufficient emergency exits
• broken doors and locks
• missing hardware
• broken windows and frames
• damaged paint with lead risks
• damaged ceilings, floors and walls

“It is unacceptable that dozens of immigrant tenants have had to live under these unsafe and unhealthy conditions,” said City Attorney David Chiu.

According to the city, the three properties also have at least “14 unauthorized SRO rooms and dwelling units.”

Several violations have been remedied over the years, but city officials say there are 21 related to health and sanitation, structural damage and work without permits that have not been addressed.

The three property owners are also accused of violating state housing law and California’s Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit claims the property owners profited from renting out dwellings with violations which gave them an unfair advantage over similar landlords who do not “(engage) in such practices.”

San Francisco is seeking penalties, fees, and injunctive relief to cure the violations at the properties.

More from CBS News

Read More

The post San Francisco suing 3 Chinatown property house owners over well being, security violations appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

SOUTH BEND, Ind. – In addition to the many economic hardships the coronavirus brought with it, a local handyman is also facing another setback.

John Goetz, owner of Goetz Family Handyman, claims the St. Joseph County’s public health mask arrangement caused him physical, financial and emotional harm.

In the lawsuit, Goetz said he could not wear a mask because he claims he has chronic fatigue syndrome, which makes him short of breath and makes it difficult for him to breathe while wearing it.

“The representatives of the people should not stand on the sidelines,” said Goetz lawyer Arie Lipinski. “You have no choice. I think it is something that the legislature should decide on based on the people, the majority and the common good.”

Goets also stated in a complaint to the county that his health was neglected by several companies, no accommodation was offered and he was either forced to leave the company or to wear a mask.

He said this made him unable to do the requested work for his own business and as a result he hurt him financially.

Goetz ‘attorney Arie Lipinski said for these reasons they would take action against the county to make the mask order unenforceable.

“It is strictly legal, it is not a challenge based on the effectiveness of masks. It is not a challenge of how dangerous or deadly COVID is. It is a challenge to the health department and the agency of officials,” Lipinski said.

But how likely is it that the mask mandate will be completely unenforceable?

“You know that we believed that until the environment related to COVID fundamentally changes, we will still have a limited number of tools to combat COVID,” said Dr. Mark Fox, assistant health officer for St. Joseph County. “Until there’s a major change that you know we’ll still have a public health policy on masks.”

St. Joseph County’s Assistant Health Officer Dr. Mark Fox said the public health mask regulation lists exemptions for people suffering from medical or health problems, but nothing specific for companies to follow.

“The St. Joseph County’s masks public health code has clear exemptions, so there are exemptions for people with underlying medical conditions,” said Dr. Fox. “The Public Health Regulation does not specify how companies should respond to the recruitment of a person citing a medical exemption. Many of them offer roadside access or delivery or some other way of accessing their goods without having to enter the store. ”

Dr. Fox generally said that complaints about mask orders are not uncommon.

“We have received a lot of complaints from companies that don’t really stick to it or require their customers to stick to it. I mean, I’d probably estimate nearly 1,000 complaints since July,” said Dr. Fox. “What the public does not see are the massive complaints that have been made about you that you are not following the mask sequence in public spaces.”

St. Joseph County plans to meet Tuesday evening to discuss updates to a mask ordinance that would include fines for violating the mask ordinance.

The post Native handyman suing county over masks order appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

SACRAMENTO (CBS SF / AP) – State and local officials, including Attorney General Xavier Becerra, filed a lawsuit against the country’s largest operator of retirement homes on Monday.

The suit focuses on Brookdale Senior Living Inc.’s 10 qualified care facilities in California.

CONTINUE READING: Bay Area Health Officer: The Best COVID-19 Vaccine Is “One That You Can Get The Fastest”

The company put the health of “tens of thousands” of patients at risk, forcing families to find new homes quickly by not giving at least 30 days’ notice of misses or layoffs required by skilled care facilities. It is also said that the company did not adequately prepare patients for discharge or transfer.

One was an 80-year-old man with Alzheimer’s disease, heart failure and five other conditions who was released without proper notice or discharge plan, the lawsuit said. He was hospitalized within a week.

A 78-year-old man who suffered from heart and kidney disease, had difficulty walking and was recovering from pneumonia was also released without notice or plan. A catheter was used to administer drugs that were still in his body. His family was not told how to give his medication or oxygen.

“Brookdale is doing this so it can fill its beds with residents who are making more money,” the suit claims. It said the company will fire patients when their Medicare coverage ends “regardless of care and treatment needs” instead of keeping them and receiving lower reimbursement rates.

The company released the following statement in response on Monday afternoon. “

“We are aware of this lawsuit filed by the State of California against Brookdale today and similar lawsuits filed or threatened against other qualified care providers.

We categorically deny that Brookdale committed willful or fraudulent behavior. We are disappointed with the allegations against the skilled care industry. Posting unproven allegations is ruthless and undermines public confidence in a service necessary to care for the elderly, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Brookdale is committed to providing high quality care to our residents and patients, and we take seriously our mission to enrich the lives of those we serve. “

CONTINUE READING: Third Stimulus Check: When will your $ 1,400 Economic Impact Payment arrive?

The Tennessee-based company operates in 43 states. It is said there are 726 independent residential, assisted living, memory, and retirement communities capable of serving approximately 64,000 residents.

The lawsuit alleges that Brookdale has also provided the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid with false information that is used to assign “star ratings” (a one to five star rating) to help consumers choose a quality facility. Each facility receives an overall rating and a rating for inspections, staff, and quality of care.

The company overrated its nursing staff hours and received unjustified four- and five-star ratings, the lawsuit said. It is alleged that the practice violated both the Unfair Competition Act and the False Advertising Act.

“We blame Brookdale for artificially increasing its profits by cutting back on the rendition or discharge of its patients,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who responded to Senate confirmation for the Secretary for Health and Human Services in the Biden Administration is waiting. “It lured individuals into its facilities through false promises of the highest quality.”

The rating system was the subject of a long, critical story in the New York Times on Saturday. According to the newspaper, nursing home companies misled the star rating system in a way that hid long-running problems and was not prepared for the coronavirus pandemic, which was widespread among their vulnerable elderly and sick populations, killing more than 130,000 residents.

The rating system was especially important for families during the pandemic when they often couldn’t visit facilities in person, the newspaper said. One of the concerns cited is a lawsuit filed by a former resident of a facility in Brookdale, Kentucky.

The company has California care facilities in Bakersfield, Camarillo, Carlsbad, Northridge, Rancho Mirage, San Diego, San Dimas, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Rosa, and Yorba Linda.

The lawsuit was led by Kern County District Attorney Cynthia Zimmer, who said in a statement that when nursing home companies break the rules, “create environments where the most vulnerable among us are exposed to unnecessary victimization, stress and even physical harm are.”

She was joined by attorneys from Alameda, San Diego, and Santa Cruz counties, as well as Los Angeles attorney Mike Feuer. The lawsuit seeks a permanent disposition that requires better practices as well as $ 2,500 civil penalties for each violation of the Business and Occupation Code identified in the lawsuit.

MORE NEWS: Person rescued by BART Tracks at 16th Street Mission Station in San Francisco

© Copyright 2021 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All rights reserved. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The post California AG Suing Nation’s Largest Nursing Residence Operator Over High quality Scores – CBS San Francisco appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera filed a lawsuit against the city’s school district on Wednesday.

Herrera has blessed Mayor London Breed to force the hand of the SF Unified School District (SFUSD), and it does so after months of back and forth as Breed turned down the district’s project to rename 44 schools without prioritizing has brought students back to personal learning. Just last week the school board voted to accept all of the recommendations of a renaming committee formed last year with a goal of voting by April on new names for schools named after Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and Dianne Feinstein.

As the Chronicle reports, Herrera is now calling on SFUSD for its “ambiguous, empty rhetoric,” saying it is violating a California law that went into effect last September and requires a clear plan for resuming in-person tuition. The law specifically states that a plan must be in place for students who have “suffered significant learning losses due to school closings”.

The lawsuit precedes an injunction Herrera intends to file to enforce immediate action by the district. He says he will file February 11th.

“It’s a shame it came to this,” Herrera said in a statement to the Chronicle. “The Board of Education and the school district had more than 10 months to work out a specific plan to get these children back to school.” So far they have earned an F. Having a plan to make a plan doesn’t cut it. “

Mayor Breed, who spent $ 15 million in city grants to reopen the school, says distance learning has had an overwhelming impact on black, Latin American, Asian, and low-income students. Meanwhile, the state gave four counties in the Bay Area, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Marin, the green light to reopen K-6 schools as COVID cases declined.

“This is not the path we would have chosen, but nothing is more important right now than getting our children back to school,” Breed said in a statement. Our teachers have done an incredible job of providing distance learning support to our children, but that doesn’t work for anyone. “

In mid-December, the local teachers union and the district announced that they had not reached an agreement to reopen schools for a small portion of the students by January 25, according to a plan announced ahead of the rise in COVID cases during the holiday season had been . Under this plan, six elementary schools, eleven preschools, and classes for the learning disabled were to be restarted between January 25 and February 8, with other students returning by March. However, the teachers’ union rejected safety requirements that the district said were “outside of the guidelines of the Department of Health.” Mayor Breed called the impasse “annoying” at the time, as the chronicle reported.

No later plan has emerged that led to the city’s lawsuit.

School Board President Gabriela López told Chronicle: “I think filing a lawsuit will most likely slow us down. I don’t see how helpful this is right now when we’re making progress and the county hasn’t provided the support we need. ” Tests and vaccines that we need. “

Headmaster Vince Matthews tells Chronicle that he doesn’t expect middle or high school students to be back in public classrooms in San Francisco this school year.

Now a strike could take shape with six unions representing SFUSD workers talking about a possible strike if the reopening proceeds without certain requirements being met. Demands reportedly made by teachers include that all school staff have access to COVID-19 vaccines and that teachers be provided with personal protective equipment, air purifiers, COVID safety training and adequate ventilation for all classrooms.

The city is likely to cite the fact that none of the city’s 113 private and parish schools have been known to have outbreaks since they learned in person back in the fall. A total of 15,000 school children at these private schools have been back in the classroom for months, with precautionary measures against masking and distancing.

Connected: Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, and dozens of other names to be removed from San Francisco public schools

The post San Francisco Is Suing Its Personal Faculty District In Escalating Conflict Over Reopening appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.