Skip to main content

Uber Independent Contractor Suit Continues, Pending a Motion to Compel Arbitration


For those who have been following the recent litigation surrounding Uber, this is an update on the suit pending in a California District Court, O'Connor, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.  Several Uber drivers filed suit against the company and alleged that the company violated the California Labor Code when it classified the drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.  

Unsurprisingly, Uber has argued that it exerts insufficient control over the drivers' work to be considered their "employer".  Uber has pointed out that the drivers set their own schedules, work when they want to work, have the freedom to pick up whoever they want, act as their own boss, etc.  I know whenever I hear ads on the radio (or at least the podcasts that I listen to), Uber is always advertising for drivers and markets the position in a similar manner (ie "be your own boss", "set your own hours", "work when you want to work", etc).  Uber certainly has a compelling argument that its drivers are indeed independent contractors.

The parties that brought the suit against Uber, however, argue that they are required to follow a "litany of detailed requirements" that Uber imposes upon them.  As well, the drivers are graded by the passengers they pick up and are subject to termination if they fail to follow Uber company requirements (such as rules in regard to conduct with customers, cleanliness of their vehicles, timeliness in picking customers up, what they can say to customers, etc).  Based upon this evidence, the drivers have alleged that they are actually employees, rather than independent contractors.

At this point, Uber has a motion to compel arbitration that is to be heard by the Court in late October.  If I were the Uber drivers that brought the suit, I would do whatever it takes to get this case in front of a jury.  Something tells me a jury would likely look more favorably upon this kind of case than a panel of arbitrators.

Stay tuned as this one unfolds.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more