The lawsuit follows several filed by California city attorneys in recent years targeting the worker-classification practices of gig-economy companies. (Photo: Shutterstock)
The district attorneys for Los Angeles and San Francisco on Wednesday sued online housecleaning and home-repair service company Handy Technologies Inc. for allegedly misclassifying its workers as independent contractors.
Chesa Boudin of San Francisco and George Gascón of Los Angeles have asked a San Francisco County Superior Court judge for penalties and injunctive relief that would force New York-based Handy to provide minimum wage, workplace protections and other benefits to thousands of workers in California.
Recommended For You
"Domestic workers like those employed by Handy have always been particularly vulnerable to labor injustices, but in the midst of this pandemic, these essential workers face even greater risks when they are denied the health and welfare protections guaranteed to them under state law," Boudin said in a statement.
A representative for Handy said in an email: "We believe this suit has no merit. It is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and the rights of Handy and the Pros who use its service. Handy complies with all laws and regulations in California and elsewhere, and we will vigorously defend ourselves in court."
The lawsuit follows several filed by California city attorneys in recent years targeting the worker-classification practices of gig-economy companies that rely on fleets of what they say are independent contractors as part of their business models.
Government attorneys have targeted Instacart, DoorDash, Uber and Lyft for violations of a California statute, AB 5, enacted in 2019. AB 5 codified much of the California Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, which made it tougher for employers to deny workers employee status.
California voters thwarted some of those efforts last year when they passed Proposition 22, a state initiative that exempts Uber, Lyft and other app-based ride-hailing and delivery companies from AB 5. Handy does not fall under that exemption.
Plaintiffs challenging ride-hailing and delivery companies' practices cannot seek orders granting employment status but they can ask for damages based on past violations.
Littler Mendelson. Credit: Jason Doiy/ALM Handy is already facing a number of private-sector plaintiff worker-classification suits.
Gibbs Law Group sued Handy in 2018 on behalf of house cleaner Patrick Pote, who is seeking relief under California's Private Attorney General Act statute. Handy, represented by a team from Littler Mendelson, unsuccessfully moved to compel arbitration in that case and is now appealing that ruling, said Gibbs Law Group partner Steven Tindall.
Asked about the district attorneys' suit, Tindall said "more power to them. Handy is breaking the law and it's another way of getting at what we're trying to get at" with Pote's lawsuit.
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Mike Scarcella
Mike Scarcella is a senior editor in Washington on ALM Media's regulatory desk. Contact him at [email protected]. On Twitter: @MikeScarcella. Mike works on a slate of newsletters: Supreme Court Brief | Higher Law | Compliance Hot Spots | Labor of Law.
