Plaintiff Asks Judge to Classify Uber Drivers as Employees Under 'Dynamex'
Lawyers at Robins Kaplan and Keller Lenkner sued Uber last month on behalf of a SoCal livery service claiming that the ride-hailing app company saves millions in required benefits and payroll costs by misclassifying drivers, and targets their client with “below-cost and anticompetitive pricing.”
October 06, 2018 at 10:42 AM
3 minute read
Lawyers representing a California livery service are taking an early shot at getting a federal judge to find that Uber Technologies Inc. is running afoul of the state's labor laws by classifying its drivers as contractors rather than employees.
Robins Kaplan and Keller Lenkner lawyers sued Uber in September on behalf of Studio City-based Diva Limousine Ltd., which claims that the company saves as much as a half billion dollars in required benefits and payroll costs via its driver classifications. They allege the misclassification allows Uber to target clients with “below-cost and anticompetitive pricing.”
On Friday Diva's lawyers filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that under the employment classifications set out in the California Supreme Court's Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court opinion from April, Uber drivers are clearly employees.
“The California Supreme Court recently held that a transportation worker is an employee unless the hiring entity can show that the worker 'performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business,'” Diva's lawyers wrote. “Uber cannot make that showing.”
Keller Lenkner's Ashley Keller said in a phone interview Friday afternoon that the only way that Uber could argue that its drivers are not employees under the second prong of the test to determine worker classification outlined by Dynamex is by arguing that it isn't in the business of providing rides.
“I don't see any way a company like Uber could say with a straight face that Uber's drivers are 'merely incidental' to its business,” Keller said.
Co-counsel Michael Geibelson of Robins Kaplan added, “Only when they complete their switch to driverless cars will they be able to do their business without their drivers.”
Uber is represented in the suit by a San Francisco-based team from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. In a court filing Friday, Uber's lawyers indicated that they plan to respond to the complaint on or by Nov. 9.
Read the motion below:
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This content has been archived.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