All UberBlack, UberX, and UberSUV drivers who have driven for Uber in the state of California at any time since August 16, 2009, and who (1) signed up to drive directly with Uber or an Uber subsidiary under their individual name, and (2) are/were paid by Uber or an Uber subsidiary directly and in their individual name, and (3) did not electronically accept any contract with Uber or one of Uber’s subsidiaries which contain the notice and opt-out provisions previously ordered by this Court (including those contracts listed in the Appendix to this Order), unless the driver timely opted-out of that contract’s arbitration agreement.In June, the California Labor Commission ruled that a single Uber driver was an employee, not an independent contractor. That ruling had very limited applicability, but the Uber suit could have far-reaching consequences. Attorney Shannon Liss Riordan has brought a number of other class action suits against on-demand economy companies including Lyft, Postmates, Handy, and Caviar on the same issue of worker classification. Independent contractors are not eligible for basic labor law protections such as the minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, worker's compensation insurance, and the right to organize a union.
The cases are all pretty similar legally as well as factually. What we have here are a number of companies that are shifting the cost of running a business to their workers. Like Uber and Lyft and a number of other companies that have started in recent years that provide their services through a smartphone application, they seem to think that offering their services to customers through this use of technology somehow gets them around the employment rules, but it doesn't.We'll update this story when we've had time to read the whole ruling (embedded below), but based on a quick skim, one section at the end deserves a quick shout out.
Showing 1-2 of 2
Comments are closed.
