The industry-backed initiative, which parallels employers’ efforts in other states like California, had divided drivers and sparked fierce debate among Massachusetts politicians and union allies
Proponents said the classification would preserve drivers’ ability to choose their own hours while adding new benefits. Opponents argued workers would continue to be deprived of the rights afforded to those classified as employees.
That, the court said, runs afoul of a clause in the state constitution that’s felled other ballot initiatives in Massachusetts in the past: petitions can only contain “related subjects.” It wasn’t immediately clear whether the industry-backed coalition, Flexibility & Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers, planned to appeal the ruling.“A clear majority of Massachusetts voters and rideshare and delivery drivers both supported and would have passed this ballot question into law. That’s exactly why opponents resorted to litigation to subvert the democratic process and deny voters the right to make their own decision,” Yunits said in a statement.
Massachusetts Is Not For Sale — the counter-coalition to the industry-backed effort, which had filed several amicus briefs to the case before the court — called in a statement to “remain vigilant” against “any further attempts by Big Tech to water down worker and consumer protections in Massachusetts or beyond.”