Ethan P. Schulman
Ethan P. Schulman is a judge of the Superior Court of San Francisco County in California. He assumed office in 2014. His current term ends on January 4, 2027.
Schulman won re-election for judge of the Superior Court of San Francisco County in California outright in the primary on March 3, 2020, after the primary and general election were canceled.
Biography
Education
Schulman received his undergraduate degree from Princeton University and his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.[1]
Career
- 2013-Present: Judge, Superior Court of San Francisco County
- 2013: Senior counsel, Crowell and Moring LLP
- 2009-2012: Partner, Crowell and Moring LLP
- 2008-2009: Partner, Folger Levin and Kahn LLP
- 1984-2008: Director and associate, Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Robertson and Falk PC[1]
Elections
2020
Incumbent Ethan P. Schulman was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled.
2014
See also: California judicial elections, 2014
Schulman ran for re-election to the San Francisco County Superior Court.
As an unopposed incumbent, he was automatically re-elected without appearing on the ballot.
[2]
Campaign themes
2020
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Ethan P. Schulman did not complete Ballotpedia's 2020 Candidate Connection survey.
Noteworthy cases
California v. Uber and Lyft
- See also: California v. Uber and Lyft
People of the State of California v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Lyft, Inc. is a case before the California First District Court of Appeal that addresses whether Uber Technologies, Inc. and Lyft, Inc. misclassified their workers as independent contractors instead of employees. The case began in the Superior Court of San Francisco.[3]
On August 10, 2020, Judge Schulman granted an injunction in favor of California, stating that Uber and Lyft were in violation of AB 5 for classifying their workers as independent contractors. Judge Schulman wrote, "Defendants’ [Uber and Lyft] position cannot survive even cursory examination. Far from ‘merely incidental’ to Defendants’ transportation network businesses, drivers’ work—the work of transporting customers for compensation—is ‘an integral part’ of those businesses. Defendants’ entire business is that of transporting passengers for compensation. … Defendant’s drivers are part of their usual, everyday business operations, and their work falls squarely within the ordinary course of that business. In short, under any reasonable understanding of the English language, and Uber or Lyft driver can only be viewed ‘as working in the hiring entity’s business.’" He added, "It also flies in the face of economic reality and common sense. ... To state the obvious, drivers are central, not tangential, to Uber and Lyft’s entire ride-hailing business."[4]
In 2020, Uber and Lyft, along with Doordash, sponsored a ballot initiative, certified as Proposition 22, to exempt app-based drivers from AB 5.
Ruling on San Francisco tax ballot measures
Schulman ruled on July 5, 2019, that two measures (both called Proposition C) on the San Francisco ballot in June and November of 2018 were properly certified as approved by city officials. Schulman ruled that the measures proposing tax increases for specific purposes required a simple majority for approval because they were put on the ballot through a citizen signature petition. The ruling stated that the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement for local special taxes in California applies to tax measures referred to the ballot by lawmakers but not to citizen initiatives. The ruling was appealed.[5]
In June 2018, 50.9% of city voters approved a citizen initiative to authorize an additional tax on the lease of commercial property for landlords with annual gross receipts over $1 million to fund childcare and early education programs. In November 2018, 61.3% of city voters approved a citizen initiative authorizing the city and county of San Francisco to impose a gross receipts tax on businesses to fund homelessness services.
Following the approval of statewide Proposition 218 in 1996, a two-thirds supermajority vote requirement was applied to both legislative referrals and citizen initiatives. An August 2017, California Supreme Court ruling about an unrelated local measure categorized taxes imposed by citizen initiatives as separate from taxes imposed by local governments, bringing the two-thirds (66.67%) supermajority vote requirement into question for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives.
Following the 2018 elections, city and county officials in San Francisco certified the 2018 measures and is collecting the June and November Proposition C taxes but is holding the tax revenue until legal disputes are concluded. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit against the city arguing that a two-thirds majority, not a simple majority, was required since the initiatives proposed special taxes. The court case resulted in Schulman's ruling and the appeal.[5]
See also
2020 Elections
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., "Governor Brown Appoints Ethan P. Schulman to San Francisco County Superior Court," December 5, 2013
- ↑ San Francisco Department of Elections, "Judicial candidates list for the June 3, 2014 primary," accessed March 25, 2014
- ↑ California Attorney General, "California v. Uber and Lyft," May 5, 2020
- ↑ Superior Court of San Francisco, "California v. Uber and Lyft," August 10, 2020
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 The San Francisco Chronicle, "Judge says SF correct in passing two tax measures on simple majority vote," July 5, 2019
| |||||
Federal courts:
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: Central District of California, Eastern District of California, Northern District of California, Southern District of California • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: Central District of California, Eastern District of California, Northern District of California, Southern District of California
State courts:
California Supreme Court • California Courts of Appeal • California Superior Courts
State resources:
Courts in California • California judicial elections • Judicial selection in California
