Skip to main content

Uber Drivers Identified as Independent Contractors in Florida


Recently, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity ("DEO") held that Uber drivers are independent contractors and therefore not entitled to unemployment benefits.  The issues arose after Darrin McGillis and Melissa Ewers both wanted to be Uber drivers in Florida.  They downloaded the driver app and started to work for Uber.  However, Uber ultimately revoked McGillis and Ewers' access to the app and they both filed for unemployment benefits.  Initially, the Florida Department of Revenue ruled they were both employees and entitled to benefits.  However, Uber appealed the ruling.  

In the DEO opinion, it was noted that Uber allows drivers to use the app on their own terms.  Drivers can decide when and how long to drive (which gave the drivers "control over the details of their work"...that's a buzz word right there), use their own vehicles for work, choose customers, and can even work for competitors if they choose.  Therefore, Uber argued that it was in essence a "middleman or broker for transportation services", rather than an employer.  

The DEO agreed with this line of reasoning and held "Uber is no more an employer to drivers than is an art gallery to artists."  In this instance, the DEO found little ground to hold that Uber was an employer given the wide range of autonomy that was afforded to Uber drivers:  drivers work when they want, can choose which customers to serve, set their own schedules, have little to no supervision, etc.  Based upon this line of reasoning and the facts presented, the DEO held that Uber drivers are independent contractors rather than employees of Uber.

Note, this fight is not over yet.  McGillis has already filed his appeal of the DEO decision.  Time will tell if Florida courts follow this same line of reasoning.  In any event, put this one in the win column for Uber...for now.


A copy of the DEO opinion can be found here:  miamiherald.typepad.com/files/uber-final-order-12-3-15.pdf

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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more