Reported / Citable
Background
Dino Park was an Uber Eats delivery driver who suffered fatal injuries in May 2023 after falling down a flight of stairs following a delivery run. When the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner notified California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA — the state agency that enforces workplace safety laws) of Park’s death, OSHA attempted to arrange a meeting with Uber Technologies to discuss the circumstances of the accident and Park’s employment status. Uber declined to participate.
With the investigation stalled, OSHA served Uber in September 2023 with an administrative subpoena for 20 categories of documents: records concerning Park’s role on the platform, the company’s relationship with its drivers, the accident itself, and broader data about similarly situated drivers. Uber responded with objections only, producing nothing. OSHA then filed a petition in Los Angeles Superior Court to enforce its subpoena under Government Code section 11187. After supplemental briefing, the court ordered Uber to produce all 20 categories within 30 days — without any limitation on scope. Uber appealed, and the Court of Appeal stayed the order pending the appeal.
The case raised a sharp question central to the gig economy: when a platform worker is killed, can state regulators investigate the platform company, or does Proposition 22 — the 2020 ballot measure (Business and Professions Code §§ 7448–7467) that classifies app-based drivers as independent contractors — block regulatory oversight before the company’s legal relationship with the worker has been determined?
The Court’s Holding
The Second Appellate District (Division Eight) substantially affirmed the subpoena enforcement order, rejecting most of Uber’s defenses, but reversed and remanded on the scope of the document requests.
The court rejected Uber’s central argument that Proposition 22’s independent contractor classification stripped OSHA of jurisdiction. Under well-settled California administrative law, an agency has authority to subpoena records to determine whether the entity under investigation is subject to its jurisdiction in the first place. OSHA cannot determine whether Park was an employee or contractor without the very documents it seeks; Proposition 22 does not require a declaratory judgment on employment status before the investigation can begin. The court also rejected Uber’s contention that OSHA’s subpoena power under Labor Code section 6314(c) is limited to situations involving on-site inspections of a workplace. The statutory text authorizes subpoenas broadly — “for the purpose of carrying out the duties of the division” — without tying that authority to inspections. Reading in such a limit, the court found, would have the perverse effect of encouraging employers to stonewall investigations. Finally, the issuance of a citation against Uber in December 2023 (while the subpoena enforcement petition was still pending) did not moot the subpoena; the six-month limit in Labor Code section 6317 applies only to citations, not to investigatory proceedings.
However, the court found the trial court’s blanket order compelling production of all 20 categories was overbroad. Categories 8 through 20 were broadly drafted — for example, “drivers” was defined to include any “person” using Uber’s platform, potentially sweeping in customers — and the record contained inadequate analysis of how that broad data related to Park’s employment status or the circumstances of his death. The court reversed on this point and remanded with directions for the trial court to reassess the scope of each category under the three-part Brovelli framework (relevant to authorized inquiry, not too indefinite, reasonably relevant to the inquiry).
Key Takeaways
- Cal/OSHA does not have to prove a worker was an “employee” before investigating a workplace fatality — the agency can subpoena records to determine its own jurisdiction, even when the company insists the worker was an independent contractor.
- Proposition 22’s independent contractor classification for app-based drivers is not a shield against Cal/OSHA investigations; it supplies one possible answer to the employment-status question but does not eliminate the question itself.
- OSHA’s administrative subpoena authority under Labor Code § 6314(c) is freestanding — it is not limited to on-site inspections or situations where an employer has already been cited.
- A citation issued while a subpoena enforcement action is pending does not moot the underlying subpoena; the six-month limitations period in Labor Code § 6317 applies only to citations.
- Trial courts enforcing administrative subpoenas must analyze the relevance and proportionality of each document category — a blanket order to produce everything without scope analysis is reversible error.
Why It Matters
For California gig companies — particularly app-based delivery and rideshare platforms — this ruling makes clear that Proposition 22’s independent contractor classification does not end the conversation with state regulators when a worker is killed or seriously injured. Cal/OSHA retains the authority to investigate and compel document production from the platform, and the investigation determines employment status; employment status does not determine whether there can be an investigation. Companies that believe they have structured their relationships to comply with Proposition 22 should be prepared to engage with OSHA investigations early — stonewalling, as Uber did here, forced a lengthy legal battle and still resulted in a court order to produce documents.
For California practitioners advising businesses, this decision also reinforces the breadth of the state’s administrative subpoena framework. Under Government Code section 11180 et seq. and the Labor Code, state agencies may investigate and compel records across a wide range of subjects without the procedural hurdles that accompany criminal or civil discovery. That said, the partial reversal here is a reminder that overbroad document demands remain susceptible to judicial narrowing — careful review of the scope of any subpoena, and a focused relevance argument, can limit the universe of material a company must ultimately produce.