What the UK's Uber Driver Ruling Means for the Gig Economy
Uber Technologies Inc. drivers in the United Kingdom should be considered employees and have rights to minimum wage and holiday pay, a tribunal said in a ruling against the ride-hailing company.
November 10, 2017 at 04:18 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Uber Technologies Inc. drivers in the United Kingdom should be considered employees and have rights to minimum wage and holiday pay, a tribunal said in a ruling against the ride-hailing company.
Friday's ruling—which Uber says it intends to fight—mirrors the familiar debate in the United States that has generated a mountain of worker-classification suits against Uber, Lyft Inc. and other sharing-economy companies.
How these questions are resolved will be consequential to gig economy companies that built their business on the backs of independent contractors, and to the workers who feel vulnerable without the rights guaranteed to an employee.
Labor and management-side attorneys are closely watching a California case where a delivery driver for Grubhub fought for employee status. States and local governments are also grappling with similar questions.
The U.K. decision—which applied only to the drivers who brought claims and is not binding on any U.S. court—could still resound here: The ruling could influence state and federal lawmakers to take steps to resolve uncertainty about worker classification.
“This decision might end up in a perverse way being a good thing for American gig economy companies,” said Richard Meneghello, a partner in the Portland office of Fisher & Phillips. “When we look across the pond and see the confusion and disruption that it will cause, it may spur regulatory action on our side to avoid these kinds of cases.”
Gig economy workers, typically classified as independent contractors, do not have the right under federal labor law to bargain or have the right to benefits such as minimum wage, overtime and workers' compensation protections.
Several states have pushed for laws that “clarify” that Uber drivers are independent contractors, such as Texas and Florida. Other proposals have included portable benefits or creating a third class of employee under federal labor standards.
“We need as a society to restructure the laws where it comes to gig economy workers,” Meneghello said. “We need to stop trying to jam square pegs into round holes.”
In the U.K. case, more than 20 Uber drivers who worked in the London area filed suit against the company arguing they were misclassified as contractors and therefore not entitled to the benefits of an employee, or worker.
An Employment Tribunal last year agreed with the drivers. The appeals court upheld that decision, written by Judge Jennifer Eady of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The ruling said that because of the obligations of drivers to accept at least 80 percent of trip requests they receive in order to retain their status when the app was turned on and the driver was ready to work. This implied an “obligation for work.”
Attorneys representing both Uber and the drivers did not respond immediately to requests for comment Friday. Paul Jennings at Bates Wells & Braithwaite represented the drivers and Dinah Rose at Blackstone Chambers represented Uber.
“Almost all taxi and private hire drivers have been self-employed for decades, long before our app existed,” an Uber official in the U.K. told reporters in a statement. “The main reason why drivers use Uber is because they value the freedom to choose if, when and where they drive and so we intend to appeal.”
The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling is posted below.
Read more:
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 AllAfter Miami Arrest, Top Real Estate Broker Brothers Facing Sex Crimes Charges
Attorneys, Professors Share Support for Chancellor Following Musk's Online Attacks
4 minute readVisa CLO-Turned-Vice Chair Seeing Payoff From Expanded Role
Trending Stories
- 1A Look Back at the Biggest Legal Industry Shifts in 2024
- 2Ben Brafman's Professional Legacy After 50 Years? Himself
- 3Ruling Provides Lessons for Investors: Mind Your Business (Affairs)!
- 4With SDNY Stay Lifted, Sex Trafficking Civil Suit Against Vince McMahon, WWE Gets Green Light
- 5Insurer Has No Duty to Defend 'Laidlow' Claims, NJ Supreme Court Says
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