Frequent Uber and Lyft Foe Says Misclassification of Drivers Is Worsening the Global Health Crisis
In a pair of emergency motions for preliminary injunction, lawyers from Lichten & Liss Riordan who represent classes of Uber and Lyft employees are asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to find that they should be classified as employees, so that they can take advantage of state-mandated sick leave.
March 20, 2020 at 04:59 PM
4 minute read
Lawyers in two worker misclassification class action suits against Uber and Lyft allege that the companies are exacerbating the coronavirus pandemic.
"This crisis starkly demonstrates the harm that Lyft's misclassification of its drivers is causing, not only to Lyft drivers, but to Lyft passengers and the general public, as drivers are deprived of an important workplace protection to which they are entitled as employees and which is designated to protect public health," wrote plaintiffs lawyers at Lichten & Liss Riordan in one of the two emergency motions for a preliminary injunction filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Thursday.
The lawyers say the only obstacle between California ride-hailing drivers and state-mandated paid sick leave is their status as independent contractors and are asking the court to classify them as employees, according to the motions.
The drivers are "at the front lines of the crisis" as residents opt for Uber and Lyft over public transit to avoid potential contagion, the filing asserts. However, without paid sick leave drivers will continue to pick up users regardless of whether they begin to exhibit coronavirus symptoms, the lawyers contend, citing the testimony of one driver, who would continue driving "fever or no fever" to feed his children.
Uber's attorneys from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Lyft's attorneys from Keker, Van Nest & Peters removed the cases from San Francisco Superior Court to the Northern District of California earlier this week. Uber, Lyft and their attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.
"Gig economy workers are exempted from the shelter in place order because they are providing essential services," Liss-Riordan said in an email. "The least they could get is recognition of employee status so they will be entitled to employee benefits."
Liss-Riordan said she's also spoken with lawmakers about the exclusion of gig workers from federal sick pay law included in the coronavirus relief legislation. "I spoke to Sen. Ed Markey about this issue last Sunday, and as a result, he sent a letter yesterday (that I worked on with him) to Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer, urging that gig economy workers be included in additional emergency legislation," she said.
The motions also cite a letter advocacy group Gig Workers Rising sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom, asking California to fully enforce Assembly Bill 5, which codifies the worker classification test developed in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, and ensure access to paid sick leave, disability, family leave and unemployment insurance.
In an investor call Thursday regarding its coronavirus response, Uber's CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said: "This situation certainly demonstrates the downside of attaching basic protections to W2 employment. What we've said very, very consistently is that we need a third way, and we think a third way is good for society, which allows workers who want flexibility to work flexibly based on what their own needs are but also have access to protections. We've been very consistent about that, and I think this kind of situation only highlights that."
Gig companies including Uber and Lyft have pledged that they would offer to pay workers for 14 days of work if they contracted coronavirus. The companies have also promised to distribute cleaning products, but The New York Times has said they have struggled to get the products to workers.
"Plaintiffs and public simply cannot wait years, or even weeks, for Uber to comply with California's state-mandated paid sick leave law. In the interim, the rapid proliferation of the virus that occurs will be irreversible."
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 AllElon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
'The Front Line of Regulating AI': Manatt's Brandon Reilly on CPPA's Move to Adopt New Data Broker and AI Rules
Shareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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