Uber Lawsuit Attorneys
Should you wish to discuss your rights to recover or would like to become involved, you should contact the law firm of Held & Hines LLP by calling (718) 531-9700 or (212) 696-4529 or by emailing us at email@example.com
Drivers across the country have filed lawsuits against Uber claiming they have been intentionally misclassified as independent contractors, so that Uber could avoid providing them with required benefits of employment.
Recently, litigation seeking to identify Uber drivers as employees rather than independent contractors has proven successful.
In March 2015, Federal District Court Judge Edward Chen in California denied Uber’s summary judgment motion and held there are issues of fact whether Uber drivers are in fact employees and not independent contractors.
In August 2015, an Uber driver in New York State applied for workman’s compensation benefits on the basis that he was an employee of Uber and not an independent contractor. Uber contested the claim arguing, again, that the Uber driver was an independent contractor. The Workman’s Compensation Board agreed with the Uber driver and awarded the driver workman’s compensation benefits as an employee of Uber.
On October 1st 2015, the law firm of Held & Hines LLP filed a class action in Supreme Court, Kings County, alleging the following:
- Uber’s business model is structured to avoid almost all of the operational costs, including vehicle acquisitions, vehicle maintenance, fuel, insurance, etc., of operating a taxi fleet. While they claim to be a technology company, in reality they are an upscale taxi/limousine service.
- Uber does this by misclassifying its’ drivers as independent contractors despite the high degree of control that they exercise over the drivers; Uber drivers must lease Uber technology from Uber; Uber requires that its’ driver’s car meet certain standards of appearance; Uber strongly suggests that drivers stock their cars with chargers, water, gum, etc. Uber strongly suggests that its’ drivers dress in a suit to convey that they are their customers’ “personal chauffeurs.”
- Uber has a sophisticated system for supervising their drivers’ performance and soliciting feedback about performance from their customers. Highly rated drivers get preferential fares and “rewards.” While poor performing drivers are phased out of receiving fares and essentially terminated.
- Uber violates New York Labor Law by deceiving its customers into believing that it includes gratuities into the price of fares and that they convey the gratuity to the drivers. In New York it is customary to tip drivers between 15% and 22%. Knowing this, Uber was explicitly deceiving customers by telling them that gratuities were included in the price of the fare. Nevertheless, at no time, did Uber ever convey the included gratuities to their driver. Presently, Uber still misleads customers into believing that the gratuity is included in the price of the fare by explaining that gratuities are not expected. In fact, to discourage gratuities, Uber instructs its’ drivers to refuse gratuities. This leads the reasonable passenger to believe that gratuities are included in the price of the ride, and Uber’s failure to convey any gratuity to the drivers violates New York’s Labor Laws.
We filed this case on behalf of Uber drivers in New York to get the rightful benefits and protections they deserve.