Chicago's Taxi Regulations Not a "Taking"
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
issued an interesting ruling last week in response to a Chicago cab driver's
lawsuit against the City of Chicago claiming that the City of Chicago's
taxi fare regulations (1) were an unconstitutional "taking" of her
property and (2) violated the minimum wage laws. The Court
acknowledged the uniqueness of the cab drivers' claims, but ultimately ruled in
the City's favor. Callahan
v. Chicago (7th Cir., Feb. 17, 2016)
The Court first determined that the cab
drivers' takings claims should be dismissed because the cab driver did not own
any asset that had been reduced by the City's regulation of taxi fares. She didn't own her own cab or medallion, and instead leased these
from others. In the Court's view, the only asset she has is her time, and she
could choose to use that time driving a cab or doing some other job.
Even if she had owned her own cab and medallion, the Court found that the City's fare structure had not,
historically, impacted the price or value of medallions. In 2007, a taxi medallion sold
for $64,000, but in 2013, new medallions sold for $360,000. As a result,
even owners of these assets could not show a negative impact on their assets
from the City's fare structure.
The cab driver's second argument was that
the City's taxi regulations effectively reduced her compensation below the
minimum wage and the City was liable to pay the difference to her. The Court rejected her argument on the basis that the City was
not her employer and could not, therefore, be held responsible for payment of
minimum wages to taxi drivers. In short, the Court concluded that extensive
regulation by a government does not make that government an employer of the
regulated parties.
0 comments:
Post a Comment