Persons Who Drive for Uber After Job Loss May Still Get Unemployment Benefits, Court Rules
Out-of-work Pennsylvanians who drive for a ride-hailing service in their spare time are not automatically ineligible for unemployment benefits, a Pennsylvania appellate court has ruled.
January 24, 2018 at 04:25 PM
3 minute read
Out-of-work Pennsylvanians who drive for a ride-hailing service in their spare time are not automatically ineligible for unemployment benefits, a Pennsylvania appellate court has ruled.
An en banc panel of the Commonwealth Court ruled 7-1 Wednesday that a former behavioral health specialist should be entitled to unemployment benefits, despite earning money as a driver for Uber after he lost his job. The decision reversed a holding from the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
The UCBR had determined that the driver, Donald Lowman, could not receive the benefits because driving for Uber constituted “self-employment.”
The court said that Lowman's earnings could defray the amount of benefit received but were not a disqualifier. The ruling comes on an apparent matter of first impression and deals with one way the gig economy intersects with traditional economic benefits.
President Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt, however, said the board's reasoning was flawed, and there was no indication that he planned to enter into an independent business venture as an Uber driver.
A side job, Leavitt indicated, was a side job, even if entered into after loss of full-time work.
“Uber permitted claimant to drive for other ridesharing entities, and claimant was able to accept or refuse assignments. These findings, which focused solely on claimant's relationship with Uber, do not reflect 'a positive step' toward establishment of an independent business,” Leavitt said. “Simply, his actions did not reflect 'an entrepreneurial spirit' or 'intentions of starting a new business or trade.'”
Although the court remanded the case back to the unemployment compensation referee to calculate Lowman's unemployment benefits, Leavitt noted that the amount of his earnings as an Uber driver will need to be factored in to offset what he receives in benefits.
Judge Patricia McCullough issued a concurring and dissenting opinion, saying she disagreed with the majority's rationale, but agreed with its holding.
According to Leavitt, Lowman worked as a behavioral health specialist, but lost his job and applied for unemployment compensation benefits in June 2015. While he was awaiting a determination he entered into a software license and online service agreement with Uber's parent company, and began working as an Uber driver in July 2015.
About a month later the Unemployment Compensation Service Center determined that Lowman was not entitled to benefits, finding that his agreement with Uber made him ineligible.
Focusing on the degree of dependence between Lowman and Uber, the review board also determined that Lowman was ineligible for the benefits. The board found that he was not a subordinate in the company, and could refuse assignments if he wanted, or could provide similar services for other companies.
Leavitt, however, said that analysis “misses the mark.”
“The question here is whether claimant took a positive step to embark on an independent trade or business, thereby disqualifying himself for benefits,” Leavitt said.
Julia Simon-Mishel of Philadelphia Legal Assistance represented Lowman, Janet Tarczy represented the review board and Paul Lantis of Littler Mendelson represented Uber. Philadelphia Legal Assistance, a spokeswoman for the Department of Labor and Industry and Lantis each did not return a call seeking comment.
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 AllJudges Push for Action to Combat Increasing Threats Against Judiciary
3 minute readHospital Must Provide Pre-Complaint Discovery in Privacy Breach Case, Pa. Judge Rules
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Aging Condo Neglect Leads to $1M Payout in Miami Beach Slip and Fall
- 2‘BiT Global Lost’: Federal Judge Won’t Stop Coinbase From Delisting wBTC Token
- 3Some Elite Universities Favor Wealthy Students in Admissions Decisions, Lawsuit Alleges
- 4Judge Asks: Should Tom Girardi Serve Sentence in a Medical Facility or Behind Bars?
- 5EPA grants California authority to ban sales of new gas cars by 2035. Action faces reversal by Trump
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