California Voters Approve Ridesharing Drivers from Labor Protections

California voters approve Uber-Lyft-sponsored proposition 22
Nov24

Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri In an earlier post, we talked about how the First District Court of Appeal in California ruled that Uber and Lyft drivers were employees and were entitled to full protections under California’s Assembly Bill 5 law (AB5) such as paid sick leave, overtime, and fair wages.[1] Around the same time, however, Uber and Lyft were sponsoring a state ballot-initiative for Election Day known as Proposition 22 that would have exempted their drivers from the protections of AB5 and identified them as “independent contractors” rather than “employees.”

November 24, 2020
Read more

State Appellate Court Classifies Uber and Lyft Drivers as Employees

Uber-Lyft Drivers either Employee or Independent Contractor
Nov11

Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri The rise of the gig economy has to new forms of work that face tremendous obstacles when it comes up against worker legislation like the NLRA. No job has become more symbolic of the gig economy than the rideshare services known as Uber and Lyft. There has long been a debate about whether Uber and Lyft drivers were either employees or independent contractors. Being the latter would exempt Uber and Lyft from giving their drives their necessary protections and benefits under the National Labor Relations Act and other

November 11, 2020
Read more

How The Department of Labor’s New Definition of “Independent Contractors” Can Wrongfully Exclude Workers From Federal Labor Protections

Independent Contractor Might Recieve New Proposed Definition
Oct07

Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri In what could be seen as a boon to employers, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a proposed regulation setting out a new definition of who was or was not an “independent contractor.”[1] This regulation, if approved and finalized, would make it easier for employers to classify much of their workforce as “independent contractors” and be excused from providing them labor protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act.[2] On the other hand, however, it may affect the security of workers as they could lose considerable protections and benefits

October 7, 2020
Read more

EPA Approves 1-Bromopropane For Use in the Workplace

EPA Approves 1-Bromopropane For Use in the Workplace
Aug24

Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a final risk evaluation on the substance 1-Bromopropane (1-BP), as per the Toxic Substances Control Act.[1] It sought to inquire about the safety of 1-BP for general use and the environment.[2]  On August 11, 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released this report.[3] Although it found that 16 out of 25 conditions of use presented an unreasonable risk to workers, occupational non-users, consumers and bystanders, the EPA still found that none of these conditions made 1-BP pose any unreasonable environmental

August 24, 2020
Read more

USCIS Says Certain Children of U.S. Government Employees And U.S. Armed Forces Members Born Overseas Are Not Automatically U.S. Citizens

Government Employees Born Overseas Not Automatically Citizen
Oct02

Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq.  While one can easily criticize many of the anti-immigration policies issued by the Trump administration for their substantive positions, to the extent that government policy consistency is beneficial, you cannot fault the Trump administration for lack of general consistency on immigration issues.  Whatever the immigration issue, from migrant rights to green card rights to citizenship rights, the Trump administration will generally consistently adopt the position on the issue that restricts, and is adverse to, such migrant rights, green card rights, or citizenship rights. As another example of the Trump administration’s generally consistent

October 2, 2019
Read more
Request Consultation