Garcia: Amazon Did Not Prove Its Flex Driver Fit Proposition 22’s Definitions

Amazon did not prove the threshold for Proposition 22 coverage

In Jaqueline Garcia v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. ADJ18961005 (WCAB Sept. 17, 2026), the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board rejected the employer’s proof that Proposition 22’s independent-contractor provisions applied to this delivery work. It rescinded the finding of independent-contractor status, substituted a finding that the statutory definitions had not been established, and returned the matter for further proceedings.

The result was not a final finding that Garcia was an employee or that her injury was compensable. The Board deferred every other issue and expressly declined the broader constitutional and Labor Code questions. This official panel decision concerns the proof needed to invoke a particular statutory scheme, rather than a ruling invalidating that scheme.

The trial record showed blocks of deliveries

The worker alleged an injury while delivering packages in February 2024. At trial, the employment issue was framed as employee versus independent contractor under Proposition 22 and Business and Professions Code sections 7448–7467. The judge decided that issue in the employer’s favor and deferred the others.

The evidence described an app through which drivers selected available blocks of time. Garcia testified that Amazon assigned roughly 40 to 50 packages to a route and expected delivery within the allotted block. Amazon’s representative described onboarding and acceptance of terms of service. The terms defined a delivery block as a scheduled period for delivering the items supplied to the driver. Garcia, pages 2–4.

The worker also challenged witness knowledge and authentication of the agreement and argued about the interaction with employment law. Those were arguments she made. The Board’s disposition rested on Amazon’s failure to establish the statutory definitions; it did not need to adopt every other challenge to the trial result.

The statutory definitions required more than an app and a contract

The Board placed the burden on Amazon as the party asserting that Proposition 22 applied. Section 7451’s conditions required proof of a qualifying relationship between an app-based driver and a network company. Section 7463 supplied the delivery-specific definitions. The analysis therefore started with whether this business and work arrangement fit those definitions, rather than with the contract’s independent-contractor label. Garcia, pages 4–6.

Individual delivery choices: The delivery-network definition contemplates the option to accept or decline each delivery request without losing app access for declining a particular request. The Board found that the terms required a driver to accept a block and deliver the assigned packages, instead of choosing each individual request.

The number of distinct orders: Section 7463(h) permits more than one order in a delivery request but no more than 12 distinct orders from different customers. Even treating a block as one request did not solve Amazon’s problem: The unrebutted evidence described 40 to 50 deliveries in that block. The opinion’s comparison is to distinct customer orders, so package counts in another record must be examined rather than automatically equated with that statutory term.

Engaged-time and mileage records: The definition of a delivery network company includes maintaining records of engaged time and engaged miles. The Board found no evidence establishing those records, and it noted the representative’s testimony about the lack of route tracking. These were separate evidentiary gaps, not different ways of restating the same contractual-label concern.

The substituted finding left employment and injury issues for later

The Board rescinded the June 25, 2025 findings, found that Amazon had failed to prove it was a qualifying network company and Garcia a qualifying app-based driver, deferred all remaining issues, and returned the case to the trial level. Garcia, pages 7–8.

That disposition prevents two opposite overstatements. The employer did not obtain independent-contractor treatment on this record. But the worker did not yet receive a final compensation award. The case did not decide the broader relationship between Proposition 22, the Constitution, and the Labor Code, because the statutory threshold was enough to resolve the issue before the panel.

What the case contributes to a different delivery-work dispute

This is a WCAB panel decision with persuasive value, not an en banc decision establishing a statewide rule for every app or Amazon program. A different operating model, contract version, delivery choice, order structure, or recordkeeping system may present a different record.

The practical contribution is a sequence for analysis: Identify the claimed statutory classification, prove each definition with the actual work arrangement, and then address any remaining employment and injury issues. Our Amazon Flex evidence guide explains how a driver can preserve the documents that bear on those questions in a workers’ compensation claim.