Uber Lawyers Say New Calif. Law Isn't the Magic Bullet for Drivers in Misclassification Fight
The company's lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher contend in a new court filing that Uber drivers' classification as contractors remains unchanged despite the California Supreme Court's 'Dynamex' decision, the passage of the state's AB 5, and a recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
October 30, 2019 at 07:37 PM
4 minute read
Uber drivers still aren't employees under new case law and California statutes, according to the San Francisco-based ridesharing company's lawyers.
A Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher team led by Theodore Boutrous Jr. in Los Angeles wrote that "no court has ever found that drivers who use the Uber App are Uber's employees under any standard," responding Tuesday to a motion for preliminary injunction in a case asserting that drivers are misclassified as independent contractors.
Even when applying the ABC test, a three-pronged standard outlined in the California Supreme Court's Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court decision, the courts still have not wavered on Uber drivers' contractor designation, write Boutrous, Theane Evangelis and Heather Richardson of Gibson Dunn in Los Angeles and Joshua Lipshutz of the firm's Washington, D.C., office.
The Gibson Dunn attorneys claim that Thomas Colopy, who has driven for Uber since 2012 and hopes to represent a class of drivers, "argues only that he is likely to succeed on his contention that Uber has misclassified him because of Dynamex and the passage of AB 5, even though Dynamex was decided almost two years ago and AB 5 does not go into effect until January 1, 2020."
In the court Uber's lawyers also note that AB 5, which codified the Dynamex decision, is still not the law of the land. "Uber reserves the right to present arguments—if and when AB 5 takes effect and becomes relevant—that under AB 5, Colopy (and the putative class of drivers he seeks to represent) are not its employees," they wrote.
Colopy's lawyer, Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan in Boston, filed the lawsuit even before the governor signed AB 5 and the same day the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that Uber drivers could fall under an exemption in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) carved out for transportation workers participating in foreign or interstate commerce.
Although Colopy is not bound by an arbitration agreement since the parties agree he opted out of it, he claims the Third Circuit ruling in Singh v. Uber could release potential class members of their arbitration agreements and strengthen his chance of success on the merits, the plaintiff claimed in his motion for preliminary injunction.
However, Uber argues that the decision from the Third Circuit, which is the only court to hold that the exemption is not limited to transporters of goods, "cannot be reconciled" with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Circuit City v. Adams, which established the FAA's Section 1 exemption.
"First, Colopy is not a seaman or railroad employee, and does not fall within the 'other class of workers' to which the Section 1 exemption applies because he transports passengers, not goods," Uber's attorneys write.
Uber also contends that its drivers don't participate in interstate commerce. "To be sure, it is possible that some drivers who use the Uber App occasionally cross state lines in the course of transporting passengers within a single municipal area, but that fact is not enough to trigger the Section 1 exemption," they write.
Liss-Riordan said she looks forward to argue the preliminary injunction motion in court to promptly put to rest the question Uber's classification of its drivers throughout the state.
"Under Dynamex, it is clear that Uber drivers are employees, and that conclusion was solidified under California law with the recent passage of A.B. 5," she said in an email response. "However, Uber continues to thumb its nose at the law and thinks it can avoid all employment protections for its drivers simply by stringing arguments out in court."
The Third Circuit decision raises a fresh argument that can help Liss-Riordan oppose arbitration for drivers who did not opt out of the clause, she said.
"The Singh court recognized that the statements in the Supreme Court's Circuit City case, referring to transportation of 'goods,' was dicta," she said. "Uber drivers are involved in interstate commerce because their work includes transporting passengers at the beginning or end of their interstate journeys."
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 AllSanta Barbara Judge Accused of Moonlighting as Attorney for Secretary/Girlfriend
4 minute readInsurers Dodge Sherwin-Williams' Claim for $102M Lead Paint Abatement Payment, State High Court Rules
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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