Rohit K. Singla 

Rohit K. Singla was a well-regarded antitrust lawyer in 2019 when rideshare company Lyft asked him to take over the burgeoning litigation attacking the gig-economy model of classifying workers as independent contractors.

The company “wanted some additional analysis and thinking about these giant misclassification cases and the potential for giant government enforcement actions,” Singla said. “The practice has grown since then.”

The first matter he handled was an attempt by rideshare drivers in Massachusetts to win a preliminary injunction classifying them as employees, which Singla defeated. Then, when the pandemic began, the plaintiffs tried again, claiming the emergency required reclassification to allow them health insurance. The trial court and then the 1st Circuit rejected both ideas, he said, as well as the argument that they were exempt from arbitration because they worked in interstate transportation. Cunningham v. Lyft, Inc., 17 F.4th 244, (1st Cir., filed Nov. 5, 2021).

Now, Singla and his team also provide overall national appellate strategy to Lyft. Because the cases all raise the same fundamental issue, “there’s a recognition by the company that it’s useful to have counsel that’s thinking about it on a national scale.”

The cases “are of a different scale than typical employment cases,” Singla said. “Our bread and butter is very large, complex litigation.”

In fact, he is representing Lyft in what is considered one of the largest employment cases in California history. Filed by the state attorney general and labor commissioner plus three big-city district attorneys, it alleges that 500,000 California drivers were misclassified. The plaintiffs’ claims would only cover the time before Proposition 22 took effect.

Singla’s client and other defendants won motions to send certain claims to arbitration that drivers could have brought individually. The case is stayed while that issue is on appeal, he said. In Re: Uber Technologies Wage and Hour Cases, A166355 (Cal. App. 1st Dist., filed Oct. 4, 2022).

An unusual case drawing a lot of interest claims that by setting prices for their drivers, Lyft and the other companies are colluding and price-fixing in violation of antitrust laws. “It’s a clever case, and I know it’s being followed by a lot of companies,” Singla said. “I don’t think it’s a very strong antitrust theory, but it sounds good.” The court ordered the case to arbitration in June. Gill v. Uber Technologies, Inc., CGC-22-600284 (S.F. Super. Ct., filed June 21, 2022).

In another high-profile case, Singla represents Instacart. The issue is whether its delivery drivers are exempt from mandatory arbitration because they work in interstate transportation. “This is a very, very live issue,” he said. Chambers v. Maplebear Inc., 1:21-cv-07114 (S.D. N.Y., filed Oct. 23, 2021).

“There are two justices now on the Supreme Court, [Amy Comey] Barrett and [Ketanji] Brown Jackson, who have ruled on this exact issue in the companies’ favor as lower court judges,” Singla said.

— Don DeBenedictis