Uber Reveals Settlement of Thousands of Driver Misclassification Claims the Day Before IPO
Uber is setting aside at least $146 million to pay drivers over misclassification concerns. The ride-hailing company announced it reached agreements with thousands of drivers the day before its planned IPO.
May 09, 2019 at 12:08 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
The day before its planned initial public offering, ride-hailing giant Uber Technologies Inc. has announced it settled with thousands of drivers over claims it misclassified them as independent contractors.
Uber disclosed in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing Thursday that it reached agreements to ”resolve the classification claims of a large majority” of 60,000 U.S. drivers who filed, or expressed intention to file, arbitration demands. The San Francisco-based company set aside $146 million to $170 million for settlement payouts.
The question of drivers' classification, independent contractor versus employee, has long plagued Uber and its gig economy peers. On Wednesday, hundreds of Uber and Lyft Inc. drivers went on strike, demanding more pay, benefits, which independent contractors don't receive, and better working conditions. Uber reserved $132 million for misclassification settlements in December and listed classification suits as a risk factor in its earlier S-1 filing.
Uber has maintained its drivers are independent contractors because they drive their own cars and choose their hours. But the company has faced a series of legal challenges over its worker classification, including rulings in France and Philadelphia.
Classification changes also could come soon to Uber's home state, California. In April 2018, the California Supreme Court adopted the worker-friendly ABC test to determine contractor status in its Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court ruling, requiring companies show that workers are “free from control” and perform “work that is outside the usual course” of the business. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found last week that the Dynamex ruling applied retroactively.
Uber's Thursday filing listed Dynamex as an example of a “recent judicial decision” that “could require classification of Drivers as employees.” Its “business would be adversely affected if Drivers were classified as employees instead of independent contractors,” according to Uber's S-1 filing.
Such a reclassification could require Uber to pay “significant additional expenses,” including minimum wage and overtime pay, employee benefits, taxes and “penalties.” If the company takes action against striking workers found to be misclassified, it also could face complications under the National Labor Relations Act.
Uber and Shannon Liss-Riordan, a partner at Lichten & Liss-Riordan, who has represented Uber drivers in litigation over classification, did not immediately respond to request for comment. Keller Lenkner managing partner Travis Lenkner, who has represented drivers in misclassification suits against Uber, declined to comment.
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 AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
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