Uber, Lyft Driver Strike Could Set Off Misclassification Minefield
Thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers went on strike for better pay and benefits Wednesday. Drivers' classification as independent contractors versus employees could impact what happens next.
May 08, 2019 at 07:24 PM
3 minute read
Thousands of Lyft Inc. and Uber Technologies Inc. drivers stayed off the road Wednesday in a strike aimed at increasing their pay and benefits, a protest that could be complicated by their status as independent contractors.
Gig economy drivers' classification— independent contractor versus employee —is still under scrutiny in California, whose Supreme Court adopted the worker-friendly ABC test standard to classify contractors in April 2018.
If drivers were employees, the National Labor Relations Act grants them a right to strike, in most cases, and protects against company retaliation. But outside of Seattle, gig economy drivers don't have a right to collective bargaining or recourse if they're fired for work-related protests.
“Like many other employment protections, the right to strike extends only to employees, and not to independent contractors,” said Charlotte Garden, an associate professor at the Seattle University School of Law, in an email. ”That has two legal consequences: first, companies can fire independent contractors because of their collective action without violating labor law.”
According to Garden and Stanford Law School professor William Gould, companies could face retroactive NLRA violation allegations if it's determined drivers were retaliated against and misclassified as independent contractors. Drivers participating in Wednesday's strike raised ”issues that only exist in an employment relationship,” Gould noted, such as worker conditions.
The second legal consequence Garden cited is that, as independent contractors, drivers on strike could possibly violate antitrust law. Because gig economy drivers are, technically, all running their own independent businesses, Gould said a strike for higher pay could be viewed as “business people who are trying to fix prices.”
“That's unlawful under the Sherman Antitrust Act,” Gould said in an interview.
Both labor law professors said it's “unlikely” that an antitrust case will be brought against drivers. Garden noted companies usually consider public perception before retaliating, not just legal consequences.
Neither Lyft nor Uber responded to request for comment on what consequences striking drivers will face, if any. The companies have long held that classifying drivers as independent contractors grants workers the ability to choose when they drive or take a day off.
The strikes could be sparked by the ride-hailing companies' decisions to go public without clear paths to profitability that don't include slashing driver pay or replacing drivers with autonomous vehicles. Lyft held its initial public offering last month. Uber's is scheduled for later this week.
In their S-1 filings, both companies said their business would be adversely impacted if drivers were classified as employees. Lyft's filing stated reclassification could lead to “claims under laws pertaining to unionizing, collective bargaining and other concerted activity” and claims of “retaliation under civil rights laws.”
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAggressive FTC May Force Merging Companies to Bolster Legal Defenses
4 minute readBest Legal Departments: How Blackstone's Legal and Compliance Team Got the All-Clear to Grow Business
CEOs Want Data-Based Risk Management; GCs Lack the Tech to Do So.
InCloudCounsel Hires First GC to Continue Expansion in Asia
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250