Appeals court sides with California on order to make Uber and Lyft drivers employees

sasu66

Well-Known Member
A California appeals court sided with a lower court judge on an August ruling ordering Uber and Lyft to stop classifying drivers as independent contractors.

Uber and Lyft were given 30 days from an expected later ruling to come into compliance with the order. That will effectively require the companies to make drivers employees unless a November ballot measure aimed at codifying their status as independent contractors renders the ruling moot, or a subsequent appeal to the state Supreme Court is successful.

The San Francisco City Attorney’s Twitter account lauded the ruling in a tweet.
“We just won a unanimous victory for workers in our case against Uber and Lyft in the Court of Appeals,” the office said. “Drivers are employees.”

The city attorney, along with those from San Diego and Los Angeles, joined state attorney general Xavier Becerra in suing Uber and Lyft in May. They alleged the companies were misclassifying hundreds of thousands of workers under Assembly Bill 5, the landmark law requiring companies to classify certain categories of gig workers as employees.

A San Francisco judge ruled in August that Uber and Lyft had to stop classifying drivers as independent contractors, but the decision was stayed through Wednesday’s appeal, which spelled out the terms of lifting the stay.
“This ruling makes it more urgent than ever for voters to stand with drivers and vote yes on Prop. 22,” Lyft spokesman Julie Wood said.
The company said it is considering all of its legal options, including appealing to the state supreme court.
Uber didn’t have immediate comment.

 

Daisey77

Well-Known Member
A California appeals court sided with a lower court judge on an August ruling ordering Uber and Lyft to stop classifying drivers as independent contractors.

Uber and Lyft were given 30 days from an expected later ruling to come into compliance with the order. That will effectively require the companies to make drivers employees unless a November ballot measure aimed at codifying their status as independent contractors renders the ruling moot, or a subsequent appeal to the state Supreme Court is successful.

The San Francisco City Attorney’s Twitter account lauded the ruling in a tweet.
“We just won a unanimous victory for workers in our case against Uber and Lyft in the Court of Appeals,” the office said. “Drivers are employees.”

The city attorney, along with those from San Diego and Los Angeles, joined state attorney general Xavier Becerra in suing Uber and Lyft in May. They alleged the companies were misclassifying hundreds of thousands of workers under Assembly Bill 5, the landmark law requiring companies to classify certain categories of gig workers as employees.

A San Francisco judge ruled in August that Uber and Lyft had to stop classifying drivers as independent contractors, but the decision was stayed through Wednesday’s appeal, which spelled out the terms of lifting the stay.
“This ruling makes it more urgent than ever for voters to stand with drivers and vote yes on Prop. 22,” Lyft spokesman Julie Wood said.
The company said it is considering all of its legal options, including appealing to the state supreme court.
Uber didn’t have immediate comment.

So now if proposition 22 passes in November and guessing that won't take effect until January 1st? In that case, do they have to convert over to actual employee status for the last 7/8 weeks of the year and then convert back over January 1st?
 

observer

Well-Known Member
Moderator
So now if proposition 22 passes in November and guessing that won't take effect until January 1st? In that case, do they have to convert over to actual employee status for the last 7/8 weeks of the year and then convert back over January 1st?
They should back pay drivers as employees until Prop 22 is in effect.

That being said, Prop 22 is going to lose so they'll have to figure out retroactively what they owe drivers.
Post automatically merged:

AB 5 merely codified that drivers are employees. That doesn't mean they weren't employees before.

Gig companies should have to go back three years and figure out how much drivers and the state were underpaid.
 

sasu66

Well-Known Member
So now if proposition 22 passes in November and guessing that won't take effect until January 1st? In that case, do they have to convert over to actual employee status for the last 7/8 weeks of the year and then convert back over January 1st?
Good question but i have no answer to that. No immediate changes for at least 30 days. Then they might go to Supreme Court.
California Attorney General released a statement
 

Immoralized

Well-Known Member
It a good thing for these rideshare companies that the courts are very slow moving pieces. This can drag on for quite some time. The longest been 60 years. :biggrin:

" Myra Clark Gaines' 19th century fight over an enormous inheritance is still the longest-running civil lawsuit in American history, taking over 60 years to finally find some kind of resolution. The United States Supreme Court called her case "the most remarkable in the records."May 17, 2017"
 

Fusion_LUser

Well-Known Member
They should back pay drivers as employees until Prop 22 is in effect.

I haven't followed the court fight all that much but is back pay part of the court case? That would be a huge hit to Uber and Lyft!

The retro pay just for 2020 alone has to be at near bankruptcy-sized amounts. Sure I won't refuse a back pay check but I don't see that happening. There are drivers out there who sit around for 2 hours refusing to take pings while cherry picking the unicorn rides. Then there are the drivers like me who only get a ping every 2 hours because of the fare multiplier. What about those who run both apps at the same time? Too many variables for anyone to account for.
Post automatically merged:

It a good thing for these rideshare companies that the courts are very slow moving pieces. This can drag on for quite some time. The longest been 60 years. :biggrin:

Oh that's good news. Drivers will get their 2020 backpay in 2080 after Uber and Lyft finally lose all the court battles and California passes AB6, AB7, AB8, AB9, AB10...
 

observer

Well-Known Member
Moderator
I haven't followed the court fight all that much but is back pay part of the court case? That would be a huge hit to Uber and Lyft!

The retro pay just for 2020 alone has to be at near bankruptcy-sized amounts. Sure I won't refuse a back pay check but I don't see that happening. There are drivers out there who sit around for 2 hours refusing to take pings while cherry picking the unicorn rides. Then there are the drivers like me who only get a ping every 2 hours because of the fare multiplier. What about those who run both apps at the same time? Too many variables for anyone to account for.
Post automatically merged:



Oh that's good news. Drivers will get their 2020 backpay in 2080 after Uber and Lyft finally lose all the court battles and California passes AB6, AB7, AB8, AB9, AB10...
I believe that is part of the lawsuits. It will be a hit but U/L have known for years that it was coming and should have planned for it.

If drivers weren't as efficient as they could have been then it's Ubers fault for not treating them as employees in the first place.

Totally Ubers fault AND responsibility.

I think the back pay is one reason that Uber is stretching things out. In California labor claims can only go back three years. Every month that goes by older experienced drivers fall out of the claim period.

It's also the reason Uber prefers newer part time drivers. Their pay out keeps dropping.

I don't really think a big claim will affect Uber much, drivers were paid something, it's just a matter of how much they were underpaid.

The biggest cost will be the mileage reimbursement. In California the employer is responsible for the Full Mileage reimbursement for all miles driven.

Again, it shouldn't affect Uber too much because as an expense Uber will turn around and write it off on their taxes.
 

Daisey77

Well-Known Member
I believe that is part of the lawsuits. It will be a hit but U/L have known for years that it was coming and should have planned for it.

If drivers weren't as efficient as they could have been then it's Ubers fault for not treating them as employees in the first place.

Totally Ubers fault AND responsibility.

I think the back pay is one reason that Uber is stretching things out. In California labor claims can only go back three years. Every month that goes by older experienced drivers fall out of the claim period.

It's also the reason Uber prefers newer part time drivers. Their pay out keeps dropping.

I don't really think a big claim will affect Uber much, drivers were paid something, it's just a matter of how much they were underpaid.

The biggest cost will be the mileage reimbursement. In California the employer is responsible for the Full Mileage reimbursement for all miles driven.

Again, it shouldn't affect Uber too much because as an expense Uber will turn around and write it off on their taxes.


Now what happens to the drivers who have claimed it on their taxes over the last couple years and then suddenly get a payout on it from Uber?
 

observer

Well-Known Member
Moderator
From my understanding, a driver would be considered an employee from the date of 2018 Dynamax ruling date.

So even if prop 22 passes, that’s about 2 1/2 years of back pay.
Labor claims in California can only go back three years. I think drivers could claim they've actually been employees since the first driver was hired.

Dynamex really only clarified who is an employee, it doesn't mean they weren't employees before.
Post automatically merged:

Now what happens to the drivers who have claimed it on their taxes over the last couple years and then suddenly get a payout on it from Uber?
That is a good question.

I think Uncle Sam is going to want it back. It may be that Uber has to pay that back directly to the govt.

That's why Uber should not have been allowed to claim independent contractor in the first place.

Why are they going after these people,


and not Uber?
 
Last edited:

NicFit

Well-Known Member
They will tie everything up in the courts until Jan 1 if Prop 22 passes and then ask for a dismissal, if it fails next week they will shut down and comply
Labor claims in California can only go back three years. I think drivers could claim they've actually been employees since the first driver was hired.

Dynamex really only clarified who is an employee, it doesn't mean they weren't employees before.
Post automatically merged:


That is a good question.

I think Uncle Sam is going to want it back. It may be that Uber has to pay that back directly to the govt.

That's why Uber should not have been allowed to claim independent contractor in the first place.

Why are they going after these people,


and not Uber?
Because they hired these truckers as employees and were suppose to be given w-2s but then they just gave them 1099s. Uber never claimed you were an employee and you knew you were suppose to be an independent contractor, then the state changed the laws and said that Uber now needs to comply. The trucking company misled and lied to workers about there status, hired them and told them they were suppose to be employees. Uber told you their status and the laws changed so now they have to redo the status. If after Uber says your employees and then gives you a 1099 they would be in the same situation as the trucking company
 

observer

Well-Known Member
Moderator
They will tie everything up in the courts until Jan 1 if Prop 22 passes and then ask for a dismissal, if it fails next week they will shut down and comply

Because they hired these truckers as employees and were suppose to be given w-2s but then they just gave them 1099s. Uber never claimed you were an employee and you knew you were suppose to be an independent contractor, then the state changed the laws and said that Uber now needs to comply. The trucking company misled and lied to workers about there status, hired them and told them they were suppose to be employees. Uber told you their status and the laws changed so now they have to redo the status. If after Uber says your employees and then gives you a 1099 they would be in the same situation as the trucking company
Uber will never shut down in California. They may shut down for a week or two but they'll be back ASAP.

No, they did not. They MISSCLASSIFIED those drivers as independent contractors instead of employees.

Just like Uber. No difference.

No, the laws NEVER changed, they were clarified. Big difference. Drivers have been employees all along.

Uber doesn't get to decide wether a driver is an employee or IC, matter of fact, neither does the driver.

The worker CANNOT sign away their employee rights.

If that were the case all employers would claim workers were independent contractors.
Post automatically merged:

BTW, the state should do the exact same thing to Dara and other top management.

Walk them out of their offices in handcuffs.

See how long this "Drivers are independent contractors" bullshit lasts.
 
Last edited:

Jon Stoppable

Well-Known Member
Now what happens to the drivers who have claimed it on their taxes over the last couple years and then suddenly get a payout on it from Uber?

Drivers are cash-basis taxpayers on the RS earnings, unless they declared accrual method on their first tax return on which they filed RS income, and even then, they didn't have a clear right to receive the disputed earnings before the final court ruling under the "all events" test so they should not have recognized it. Thus, they will recognize the earnings from the judgment as taxable income in the year finally received.

*if* they for some bizarre reason did claim unpaid earnings on past years' tax returns, then nothing happens for tax purposes when they get the payout, because they already recognized the income.

Now, you owe bear some food for that answer. :ninja:
 

I will crack Lyft hacks

Well-Known Member
Uber doesn't get to decide wether a driver is an employee or IC, matter of fact, neither does the driver.

Obviously some drivers think it’s up to Uber!
They think uber is the final authority on how a driver is classified.

The problem is it’s not up to the Company to decide the law.

What date did California adopt the borello test!
Drivers would fail even that test.

Borello test was early 2000’s and ABC was recognized by 2018.

So under state law in C.A, a driver became a employee the day they signed up.

Neither the driver nor Uber can disregard the law and create its own Labor code.
 

nosurgenodrive

Well-Known Member
Best case scenario will be that drivers get to determine minimum rate, regulate deactivations, be able to build their own network of pax, and brokers fees will be capped. These are the only ways we are truly IC. A third party brought in to handle the financials is also crucial to monitor tip stealing and to regulate fares.
 

Stevie The magic Unicorn

Well-Known Member
I believe that is part of the lawsuits. It will be a hit but U/L have known for years that it was coming and should have planned for it.

If drivers weren't as efficient as they could have been then it's Ubers fault for not treating them as employees in the first place.

Totally Ubers fault AND responsibility.

I think the back pay is one reason that Uber is stretching things out. In California labor claims can only go back three years. Every month that goes by older experienced drivers fall out of the claim period.

It's also the reason Uber prefers newer part time drivers. Their pay out keeps dropping.

I don't really think a big claim will affect Uber much, drivers were paid something, it's just a matter of how much they were underpaid.

The biggest cost will be the mileage reimbursement. In California the employer is responsible for the Full Mileage reimbursement for all miles driven.

Again, it shouldn't affect Uber too much because as an expense Uber will turn around and write it off on their taxes.

Federal standard requires full mileage reimbursement as well. Not on top of min wage but at least min wage after all deductible expenses.


And Uber has to be profitable for them to write it off right?
Post automatically merged:

Best case scenario will be that drivers get to determine minimum rate, regulate deactivations, be able to build their own network of pax, and brokers fees will be capped. These are the only ways we are truly IC. A third party brought in to handle the financials is also crucial to monitor tip stealing and to regulate fares.

Uber can charge the customer whatever they want under ab5.

The driver just has to get pay+ mileage + benifits+ overtime.
 
Top