Skip to main content

Uber Settles Two Class Action Lawsuits


Recently, it was announced that Uber had agreed to pay nearly $100 million to drivers to settle two class action lawsuits filed against the company.  Those suits involved disputes over whether Uber drivers were improperly characterized as independent contractors rather than employees.  The class actions argued the drivers were entitled to reimbursements for overtime, fuel, maintenance expenses, and tip money that they alleged had been withheld by the company.  I thought this would be a good time to highlight these cases so readers have an idea of the magnitude of this settlement.



Uber's Statement on the Settlement of the Two Class Action Lawsuits

Direct from Uber's Newsroom, there is a press release which breaks down the agreed upon settlement with specifics on what Uber will pay (and provide to its drivers) to settle the case.  For those looking for a quick reference on what is being settled, this is a good place to start.


Uber Settles Suits & Prevails...At Least For This Round

Erik Sherman has a good overview of how the settlement of the two suits against Uber will likely amount to a "win" for the company...for the time being.  The settlement, which still has to be approved by the court, is for a potential $100 million ($84 million now with an additional $16 million if Uber goes public and its valuation grows an additional 50% in the first year).  Given that the number of drivers impacted by these suits is around 385,000 (and it would amount to an average payout of $145/driver), Uber is able to avoid a potentially much larger payout had this case been tried in court.  

With this settlement, Uber has managed to push the dispute over its identification of its drivers as independent contractors rather than employees down the road...for now.  As Sherman writes, this is the biggest win for Uber with this settlement.  But I certainly do not think this is the last we have heard of the independent contractor vs. employee dispute when it comes to ride sharing workers.

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