Gig, delivery, and warehouse work in Southern California after Prop 22
By Employment Law Firm Editorial
The short answer
Proposition 22, codified at Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7451, was upheld in Castellanos v. State of California, 16 Cal. 5th 745 (2024), but it reaches only app-based rideshare and delivery drivers who meet its conditions. Everyone else — subcontracted last-mile drivers, couriers on set schedules, warehouse and fulfillment workers — remains covered by Cal. Lab. Code § 2775.
The Inland Empire moves a large share of the nation's imported goods, and Los Angeles moves the parcels. Both run on 1099 labor: subcontracted delivery service partners, courier fleets, freight brokers' drivers, staffing-agency warehouse crews. Prop 22 gets blamed for all of it, and Prop 22 covers almost none of it.
What Prop 22 actually did
Proposition 22, codified at Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7451, declares that an app-based driver is an independent contractor if the network company does not set specific hours, require acceptance of specific requests, restrict work for other companies, or restrict other occupations. The California Supreme Court upheld it against a constitutional challenge in Castellanos v. State of California, 16 Cal. 5th 745 (2024).
Who Prop 22 does not cover
- Drivers for a delivery contractor that assigns routes, schedules shifts, and requires a company uniform — control that also defeats prong A of Cal. Lab. Code § 2775.
- Warehouse, sortation, and fulfillment workers, who are not drivers at all and remain within Cal. Lab. Code § 2775.
- Port and drayage truckers, whose classification California litigated well before Prop 22 and who remain subject to Cal. Lab. Code § 2775.
- Couriers and messengers dispatched by phone or by a company dispatcher rather than through a network company's app.
- Anyone whose network work fails a condition of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7451, such as being required to accept assigned requests or being blocked from working for competitors.
Warehouse work has its own statute
California regulates warehouse production quotas directly. Cal. Lab. Code § 2100 and following require employers to give warehouse distribution-center employees a written description of each quota, and Cal. Lab. Code § 2102 prohibits quotas that prevent compliance with meal and rest periods or with occupational safety requirements. A quota that makes a legally required break impossible is itself unlawful, and the missed break carries a premium under Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7.
For Riverside and San Bernardino County warehouse workers hired through staffing agencies, Cal. Lab. Code § 2810.3 matters: a client employer shares civil legal responsibility with its labor contractor for the payment of wages, so the warehouse operator can be on the hook alongside the agency that issued the 1099.
What a misclassified driver or warehouse worker is owed
| Claim | Authority | Why it applies |
|---|---|---|
| Daily and weekly overtime | Cal. Lab. Code § 510 | Long routes and mandatory overtime shifts |
| Unpaid pre- and post-route time | Cal. Lab. Code § 510 | Loading, scanning, and yard waits under employer control |
| Meal and rest premiums | Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7 | Routes and quotas that make breaks impossible |
| Vehicle and phone expenses | Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 | Personal vehicle, fuel, insurance, and data |
| Unlawful deductions | Cal. Lab. Code § 221 | Chargebacks for damage, shortages, or 'lease' fees |
| Waiting-time penalties | Cal. Lab. Code § 203 | Late or incomplete final pay after separation |
The federal overlay for trucking
Some interstate motor-carrier drivers fall under the FLSA's motor carrier exemption at 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1), which removes the federal overtime requirement of 29 U.S.C. § 207(a) — but the exemption does not reach the small-vehicle drivers covered by the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008, and it does not displace California's own overtime rules in Cal. Lab. Code § 510 for intrastate work.
Federal preemption arguments under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act have been raised against applying the ABC test to motor carriers; the Ninth Circuit rejected that challenge to AB 5 in California Trucking Assn. v. Bonta, 996 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2021), leaving Cal. Lab. Code § 2775 in force for trucking.
Filing in the Inland Empire and LA
Labor Commissioner offices serving Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties take wage claims that proceed to a hearing under Cal. Lab. Code § 98; superior court is the alternative, with fees and costs available under Cal. Lab. Code § 1194. Penalty claims on the state's behalf run through Cal. Lab. Code § 2699 after the required agency notice.
Frequently asked questions
- I drive for an app. Do I have any claim at all?
- Possibly. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7451 protects the arrangement only if the company does not set your hours, require you to accept specific requests, or restrict working elsewhere. Where the actual practice breaks those conditions, Cal. Lab. Code § 2775 applies.
- I deliver parcels for a small company that contracts with a national brand.
- That is the classic case. The small company's business is delivery, so prong B of Cal. Lab. Code § 2775 fails, and Cal. Lab. Code § 2810.3 may extend responsibility upstream.
- My warehouse quota makes breaks impossible. Is that separately illegal?
- Yes. Cal. Lab. Code § 2102 prohibits quotas that prevent compliance with meal or rest periods, and the missed break still carries a premium under Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7.
- The company deducts damage and 'truck lease' fees from my pay.
- Cal. Lab. Code § 221 bars an employer from collecting back wages already paid, and Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 requires reimbursement of the cost of doing the employer's business.
Sources & citations
- Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7451 (Proposition 22).
- Castellanos v. State of California, 16 Cal. 5th 745 (2024).
- Cal. Lab. Code § 2775 (ABC test); Cal. Lab. Code § 2810.3 (client-employer liability).
- Cal. Lab. Code § 2100 and Cal. Lab. Code § 2102 (warehouse quotas).
- Cal. Lab. Code § 510; Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7; Cal. Lab. Code § 2802; Cal. Lab. Code § 221; Cal. Lab. Code § 203.
- 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1); 29 U.S.C. § 207(a); SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008.
- California Trucking Assn. v. Bonta, 996 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2021).
Paid as a 1099 in Southern California?
A few questions about your hours, your pay, and how the work was controlled. We apply the statutes cited above and show you what the numbers look like. No cost, no obligation.