SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the losing-track-of-these-company-names dept.
In what is believed to be the first gig economy case to be fully decided on the merits, Grubhub has beaten back a labor lawsuit filed by one of its former drivers.
In a court opinion released Thursday by US Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, "the Court finds that Grubhub has satisfied its burden of showing that Mr. Lawson was properly classified as an independent contractor."
Both sides had agreed that Judge Corley, rather than a jury, would decide the case in her San Francisco federal courtroom. She heard closing arguments in late October 2017.
[...] Part of what may have doomed Lawson's own case was that, in Judge Corley's estimation, in addition to working for other gig economy companies while simultaneously working for Grubhub, he was fundamentally "not credible."
[...] Lawson, by his own admission, "gamed the app" by scheduling himself for a work shift (a "block" in company parlance) but received few, if any, actual delivery orders by putting his phone in airplane mode, among other tactics.
"Mr. Lawson's claimed ignorance of his dishonest conduct is not credible," Judge Corley wrote. "Mr. Lawson would remember if after he filed this lawsuit against Grubhub he cheated Grubhub. If he had not moved his smart phone to airplane mode, intentionally toggled available late, or deliberately engaged in other conduct to get paid for doing nothing he would have denied doing so at trial. But he did not."
[...] Michael LeRoy, a professor of labor law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, told Ars that the case has "limited precedential value."
"Going forward," he emailed, "lawyers who bring these types of lawsuits should have reservations about pushing too far or long with a plaintiff who can be shown to cheat and who gives sworn deposition or trial testimony that is not credible."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 11 2018, @06:37PM (1 child)
No, it's not that simple. Being classified as an employee would likely entitle the plaintiff to back pay (due to minimum wage and overtime pay) and other sorts of compensation. In California, that could be rather expensive for the business.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Monday February 12 2018, @03:41AM
It would also cause trouble for the new employer who were required to collect income taxes on the "employee" for the year but did not.
My wife was an indipendent contractor at an aflac office as the office manager. When we were doing taxes I realized that she qualifed as an employee. I talked to the two people paying her and one of them gave my wife a massive bonus to cover the taxes. He didn't understand the system and felt bad how bad it hit us.. I imagine most employers would have been dicks about it. I helped him figure the system out so when my wife left the job he could correctly hire employees and collect the taxes.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam