SoylentNews

"exec" writes:

Story automatically generated by StoryBot Version 0.2.2 rel Testing.
Storybot ('Arthur T Knackerbracket') has been converted to Python3

Note: This is the complete story and will need further editing. It may also be covered
by Copyright and thus should be acknowledged and quoted rather than printed in its entirety.

FeedSource: [ArsTechnica]

Time: 2017-08-24 23:30:12 UTC

Original URL: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/trial-to-decide-whether-ex-grubhub-driver-should-be-classified-as-employee/ [arstechnica.com] using UTF-8 encoding.

Title: Trial to decide whether ex-Grubhub driver should be classified as employee

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- Entire Story Below --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Trial to decide whether ex-Grubhub driver should be classified as employee

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story [arstechnica.com]:

"This is the first case in California as to how the gig economy works," US Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley said during the Thursday hearing, likely the last hearing before the September 5 bench trial, which is expected to last about a week. Most of the hearing was taken up establishing procedural ground rules and wrapping up loose threads about witness availability, among other items.

This lawsuit just might provide an answer. If Grubhub must treat its drivers as employees, the employees would be entitled to all kinds of benefits, including unemployment, insurance, and reimbursement for various expenses, like gas and employee phone bills. In short, treating workers as employees could cost companies like Grubhub millions of dollars.

The case, known as Lawson v. Grubhub [documentcloud.org], which was first filed back in 2015 [arstechnica.com], is one of a slew of ongoing cases filed against so-called "gig economy" firms. During the Thursday hearing, the judge said that she had only recently understood that, in this context, "gig" simply was slang for "job" or work. She seemingly was under the impression that it was related to the tech prefix "giga."

Also at the beginning of hearing, Judge Corley agreed that Lawson’s attorneys should have to pay $15,000 to Grubhub’s attorneys [documentcloud.org] as a penalty for submitting an earlier 300-page court filing that was to remain confidential, yet was public for several hours before it was removed.

"It was inexcusable for filing without redactions," Judge Corley said.

"This trial is a milestone because similar cases have settled or been dismissed," Michael LeRoy [illinois.edu], a labor law professor at the University of Illinois, e-mailed Ars. "When cases settle, the wage-and-hour laws are not applied and interpreted by courts—and therefore, it's hard to say for sure how the law is adapting to the rapid changes in gig work."

LeRoy noted that, because California law is "favorable" on the point of mileage and related travel reimbursement, Lawson may have the advantage.

"By winning this type of case, workers implicate a broader type of employment relationship," he concluded. "It's quite possible this case could settle just before the trial starts."

-- submitted from IRC

Original Submission