Cal/OSHA may subpoena records to decide employee status

Who gets to decide in the first instance whether an app-based worker is an employee? Uber argued that Proposition 22 made the answer clear enough to block the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) from demanding records after a fatal accident. The court of appeal disagreed. Cal/ OSHA may use its subpoena power to investigate whether it has jurisdiction in the first place. But even that broad investigative power has limits—the agency still must show that the documents it seeks are reasonably relevant and not overbroad. 

Fatal delivery and a subpoena fight 

Dino Park made deliveries through Uber’s app-based delivery platform. After making a delivery in May 2023, he fell down a flight of stairs, suffered serious injuries, and later died. The Los Angeles County Medical Examiner notified Cal/OSHA of the fatality, which then contacted Park’s widow, obtained limited information, and tried to meet with Uber about Park’s work status and the circumstances of the accident. Uber declined  to participate. 

Cal/OSHA served Uber an administrative subpoena seeking documents about whether Park was an employee or independent contractor, the facts surrounding his death, and broader categories of records concerning similarly situated Uber drivers. Uber produced no documents and objected to several grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, privacy, confidentiality, overbreadth, and relevance. It also argued that Proposition 22 made crystal clear that Park was not an employee.