Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: O'Connor v. Uber (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)


Tomorrow, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hold oral arguments as to whether Uber drivers were misclassified as independent contractors and therefore whether the company is in violation of the California Labor Code by not reimbursing the drivers for certain expenses.  (At present, the Court has certified a class to pursue the reimbursement claim and the tip claim in regard to whether Uber improperly failed to pass along tips to its drivers).  Uber has continued to argue that because it exercised minimal control over how drivers set their own work hours and schedules, its drivers cannot be considered employees (and therefore no violation of the California Labor Code occurred).


It will be interesting to see how the arguments play out tomorrow.  At this point, it is difficult to see how things will shake out as the Court has not tipped its hand in this case so far.  Although note that Uber's motion for summary judgment had previously been denied on the grounds that there was a fact issue as to whether its drivers were actually employees under California law.  (Readers might recall that California has a two step process for determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor: 1) Does the worker provide a service to the employer? and 2) How does the Borello multi-factor test apply to the facts of the case?) 

Of course, just because a motion for summary judgment is denied should not necessarily be taken as a foreshadowing of the ultimate outcome of the case.  With such a tenuous issue as to whether Uber drivers are actually employees (which could result in other related businesses such as Lyft, Fiver, Door Dash, etc being confronted with similar lawsuits), I think it is likely that the Court will be deliberate and careful in its analysis of the case when it issues its ruling.

Stay tuned.

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

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Vetoes Minimum Wage Hike

A few months ago, readers might remember that I pointed out that the New Jersey Legislature had voted to approve a minimum wage hike in the state .  Under the approved legislation, the minimum wage rate would rise to $10.10/hour in the next year and at least $15/hour over the next five.  (The current minimum wage rate in the state is $8.38/hour).  In that article, I had noted that the bill was then going to go before Governor Chris Christie for his approval or veto. As I had suggested previously, I thought that the Governor would likely veto the bill based upon his prior actions and comments on similar legislation.  Well, a few days ago, Governor Christie did just that and vetoed the bill on the grounds that it "would trigger an escalation of wages that will make doing business in New Jersey unfathomable."  Pointing to the increase in hourly minimum wage rates, the Governor referred to the bill as a "really radical increase."  (It is interesting to c...
Post a Comment
Read more