Uber May Be Saving $500M a Year in California by Misclassifying Drivers, Suit Says
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of livery services by lawyers at Robins Kaplan and Keller Lenkner, seeks an injunction barring Uber from pricing rides below cost and treble damages for Uber's allegedly anti-competitive activity.
September 11, 2018 at 05:16 PM
4 minute read
A new lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc. claims that the company may save more than half a billion dollars each year by misclassifying drivers in California as contractors rather than employees.
The lawsuit, brought on behalf of Studio City-based livery service Diva Limousine Ltd., claims that Uber's “below-cost and anticompetitive pricing” has taken its toll on a proposed class of pre-arranged transportation companies in California and others across the country who have affiliate relationships with them.
“Each day that Uber misclassifies its primary workforce, it steals wages from drivers earning below a living wage and gains millions of dollars in unlawful cost savings. Uber uses these savings to price its services far below their cost,” wrote the plaintiffs lawyers at Robins Kaplan and Keller Lenkner in Monday's 27-page complaint. “Predatory pricing strategies have been a feature, not a bug, of Uber's business model,” they wrote.
The suit, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, brings claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, which allows a competitor who is injured by unfair business conduct to seek an injunction blocking the violation. The suit also brings claims under the state's Unfair Practices Act, which bars pricing services below cost unless a business can prove that such prices aren't aimed at harming competition and provides for treble damages for companies injured by such practices.
Uber representatives didn't respond to messages Tuesday morning.
The new suit claims that Uber fails to pay drivers for breaks as required under California law and shirks tax obligations, including the 6.2 percent employer Social Security tax, the 1.45 percent employer Medicare tax, and unemployment insurance contributions. “Uber has consistently lost money on Uber rides, and would lose even more if it bore the full costs of its vehicle fleet and labor force rather than illegally shifting them onto drivers,” the plaintiffs lawyers wrote.
In a phone interview Tuesday afternoon, Diva's lawyers at Robins Kaplan and Keller Lenkner claimed that under the new worker classification standard set out in April by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, Uber drivers are clearly employees. They also noted that Diva, unlike Uber drivers themselves, aren't bound by contracts requiring them to arbitrate their disputes with the company.
“This, we think, is the first case that presents a clean opportunity to rule on whether Uber is misclassifying drivers or not,” said Keller Lenkner's Warren Postman.
Added Robins Kaplan's Michael Geibelson, “The creation of technology does not allow a company to avoid compliance with the law on issues like worker classification and predatory pricing.”
Keller Lenkner founder Ashley Keller said that he had previously worked with the Robins Kaplan team while at litigation finance firm Gerchen Keller Capital. Keller and partners Adam Gerchen and Travis Lenkner quietly launched their plaintiff-side, Chicago-based law firm a little more than a year after the $160 million sale of Gerchen Keller to publicly traded litigation finance outfit Burford Capital Ltd. in Dec. 2016.
Said Keller of the firms: “We both saw an opportunity to do right by the competitors who have been harmed by Uber's predatory pricing and misclassification of drivers.”
Read the complaint:
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 AllContract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readSouthern California Law Firms Boast Industry-Leading Revenue, Demand Through Q3
Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
Trending 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