SoylentNews

takyon writes:

The California Labor Commission has ruled in favor of a former Uber driver in San Francisco, finding that the driver is an employee of the ride-hailing company rather than an independent contractor. The ruling was made earlier but came to light when Uber appealed the decision on Tuesday. Uber could be required to pay the driver $4,152.20 for reimbursement of expenses, but that's only the beginning:

The commission said Uber is "involved in every aspect of the operation." Classifying Uber drivers as employees opens the company up to considerably higher costs, including Social Security, workers' compensation and unemployment insurance. That could affect its valuation, currently above $40 billion, and the valuation of other companies that rely on large networks of individuals to provide rides, clean houses and other services.

Uber had argued that its drivers are independent contractors, not employees, and that it is "nothing more than a neutral technology platform." But the commission said Uber controls the tools driver use, monitors their approval ratings and terminates their access to the system if their ratings fall below 4.6 stars. The ruling affects only California. However, the state is Uber's home base, one of its largest markets, and sets a path often followed by regulators and courts in other states.

Uber did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It likely will not have to start paying any additional costs unless it loses on appeal, and only after it exhausts its appeals. The commission was ruling on an appeal by Uber of a labor commissioner's award of about $4,000 in expenses to San Francisco-based driver Barbara Ann Berwick, who filed her claim in September. She worked as an Uber driver for just over two months last year. Earlier this month, Uber lost a bid to force arbitration in a federal lawsuit brought in San Francisco by its drivers. Earlier this year, the same court rejected Uber's bid to deem its drivers independent contractors, saying a jury would rule on their status. In Florida, a state agency ruled earlier this year that Uber drivers are employees.

"gewg_" writes:

The Center for American Progress reports:

Uber's business model is on the rocks [September 1] after [Federal Judge Edward Chen] granted class-action status to a lawsuit targeting the company's treatment of drivers as independent contractors.

[...] There are 160,000 drivers who will be party to the current lawsuit alleging that drivers are full employees of Uber with full labor law protections, rather than independent contractors. Any person who drove for Uber in California since mid-August 2009 and is not subject to a binding arbitration clause in her contract with the company will be considered part of the case.

[...] A jury trial will still determine whether Uber drivers meet the legal definition of employees--in which case the company would owe massive amounts of back pay to all eligible drivers--or not. And Chen did not give the drivers everything they wanted. The judge rejected class status for drivers' claims involving Uber policy around reimbursing expenses like gas, tolls, and the cost involved in a canceled fare.

[...] The cost of paying back wages and payroll taxes for the entire class, while certainly smaller than the $50 billion that the company is currently worth according to investors, would be vast.

takyon: Also at MarketWatch. In Seattle, City Council members have announced a bill that could allow Uber, Lyft, and other for-hire drivers to unionize.

Phoenix666 writes:

Owners of New York City's taxi "medallions" filed a lawsuit (PDF) against city regulators today, saying their business has been devastated by the decision to allow companies like Uber to compete using "E-hail" services.

A medallion is required to operate a New York City yellow taxicab, the only type of vehicle allowed to accept passengers who hail cabs on the street. Until recently, those medallions could sell for over $1 million. Companies like White & Blue Group, one of the plaintiffs in the case, managed fleets of licensed taxicabs by leasing out the medallions.

According to the suit, White & Blue Group, which manages the largest fleet of leased taxicabs in New York, "has seen its monthly leasing income drop as much as 50% in the past year," and has been forced to idle as much as 20 percent of its fleet each day. The complaint was filed today and reported earlier by Reuters.

Extortionists crying about losing money is about the saddest sight in the world.

Original Submission

FakeBeldin writes:

Here are two updates on motions in two unrelated cases against Uber:

In a case in which passengers claim they were sexually attacked by the drivers, the judge will allow the suit to move ahead, dismissing Uber's petition to throw out the suit. In another case, in which a litigant claims that surge pricing is a form of price-fixing, the judge has allowed the case to move forward as well. Basically, the judge seems to view Uber as facilitating cartel-forming.

To me, these two rulings seem incompatible. The first ruling seems to be based on the view that drivers are "a part of" Uber, while the second seems to be based on the view that drivers are independent - at least, I would assume a business is not beholden to have uniform prices across the USA.

Of course, I ain't no lawyer, so curious to hear what Soylentils think: Is Uber liable for drivers like a company is for its employees, or is Uber enabling price-fixing between drivers like a cartel? Can these two views legally co-exist?

Related: Uber Drivers Granted Class-Action Status in California
California's Unemployment Dept. Says Uber Drivers are Employees

Original Submission

takyon writes:

Uber is facing one less lawsuit against it. Two district attorneys sued the ride-sharing company over statements it made about the safety of its service as well as fees charged to passengers traveling to or from the airport:

Uber Technologies Inc agreed to a $25 million settlement to end a civil lawsuit in California that accused the ride-sharing company of misleading customers about the strength of its background checks on drivers, prosecutors in Los Angeles and San Francisco said on Thursday. Uber must pay $10 million within 60 days, and the remaining $15 million will be waived if Uber complies with the terms of the agreement for two years, the San Francisco and Los Angeles County district attorneys said in statements.

[...] The case was filed in December 2014 by the two district attorneys, who alleged that Uber misled its customers about the strength of its background checks on drivers. The civil complaint also contended that Uber drivers work at airports without obtaining authorization, and in the case of San Francisco, charged a $4 extra fee to passengers traveling there, without paying anything to the airport.

Airport surcharges aren't necessarily going away, but Uber will only operate at California airports at which it has explicit permission to do so. In their arguments against Uber's "gold standard" safety advertising, the district attorneys noted that Uber does not use fingerprint checks as traditional cab companies do, and that Uber had failed to prevent 25 people with prior criminal convictions from becoming drivers.

The $10 million payment will be split evenly between the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Previously: Uber: Cartel or Company? Court Rulings Diverge

Original Submission

janrinok writes:

Uber's convenient $100 million settlement with drivers may not be enough to appease them:

Uber's $100m settlement with thousands of its drivers has spun around, mounted the curb and is careering back toward a California courthouse.

Following the filing of objections [PDF] from drivers who take issue with terms of the settlement that they say only favors Uber and plaintiff lead attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, the judge overseeing the case said he also has concerns with the deal.

US District Judge Edward Chen said in a hearing in San Francisco this week that he was concerned the deal contained provisions that would too broadly shield Uber from liability concerning alleged violations of US labor laws.

This after a collection of the Uber drivers who had been part of the class action case against Uber told the court that they believe Liss-Riordan inked a settlement deal with Uber that was not in their best interests, but rather leaves them with "nothing to improve our conditions or compensate our losses."

[...] Should the settlement offer be voided, the two sides would have to negotiate a new deal or face having the case end up in front of a jury.

Previously: Uber Settles Class Action Lawsuits With California and Massachusetts Drivers

Original Submission