This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
News

Labor/Employment,
Civil Litigation

Oct. 14, 2019

Uber hit with new employee classification action

The complaint was filed by an UberEATS driver, claiming the company wrongly classifies drivers as independent contractors despite the recent passage of AB 5.

A new lawsuit in the wake of the state's new gig worker law adds UberEATS delivery drivers to the legal battle over employees and independent contractors.

Aashish Y. Desai and Adrianne M. De Castro of Desai Law Firm PC sued Uber Technologies Inc. on behalf of UberEATS driver Erik Adolph.

The 10-page complaint filed Oct. 10 says UberEATS continues to wrongly classify its drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, despite Gov. Gavin Newsom signing into law Assembly Bill 5. The complaint says the wrong classification forces the drivers to accrue out-of-pocket expenses and unpaid work time. It seeks class action status for all drivers employed by Uber in the last four years and includes two claims: failure to reimburse for necessary work expenditures and unfair competition.

AB 5 reaffirms a 2018 state Supreme Court ruling that implements standards for classifying workers as contractors. Desai and De Castro's lawsuit said UberEATS doesn't pass the test for delivery jobs being outside the usual course of company business.

"Thus, since at least 2015 to the present plaintiff and the putative class have suffered common financial harm because of UberEATS' violation of California's wage-and-hour law," according to the complaint. The suit also said that even if all class members can afford to pursue their claims separately, "the court system could not."

Uber could not be reached for comment late Friday, but its chief legal officer, D. Anthony "Tony" West, said on the company's website Sept. 12 he doesn't believe the law affects Uber drivers, so nothing will change, "even after January of next year," when AB 5 takes effect.

"We expect we will continue to respond to claims of misclassification in arbitration and in court as necessary, just as we do now," West wrote.

The case has been assigned to Orange County Superior Court Judge Glenda Sanders on the complex civil panel. Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2019-01103801 (O.C. Super. Ct., filed Oct. 10, 2019).

-- Meghann M. Cuniff

#354739

Meghann Cuniff

Daily Journal Staff Writer
meghann_cuniff@dailyjournal.com

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com