Jon Weinberg is a student at Harvard Law School.
Reuters reports that court documents made public yesterday show Uber drivers covered by the O’Connor class action, namely those who worked for Uber in California and Massachusetts over the past seven years, would be owed an estimated $730 million in expense reimbursements alone if they were found to be employees. Meanwhile, the O’Connor settlement, if approved, would pay drivers $84 million to $100 million while maintaining the classification of drivers as independent contractors. More from Reuters:
The figures had been redacted in the original settlement deal proposed last month, but a San Francisco federal judge ordered them unsealed. The new data reveals how much of a risk employee classification is for on-demand tech companies like Uber. The proposed $100 million settlement keeps Uber drivers classified as contractors, though U.S. regulators are still reviewing the issue.
Uber drivers in California and Massachusetts were entitled to about $122 million in tips, the filings show. That means Uber made about $732 million in commissions in those two states since 2009, based on an assumed 20 percent tip rate – more than $100 million less than it would have cost to reimburse drivers for expenses and tips.
The discrepancy between the value of employee status and the value of the proposed settlement is similar to that in another class action concerning the classification of gig economy workers, Cotter v. Lyft, where a judge rejected the proposed settlement as monetarily inadequate. Notably, the Cotter settlement would have paid drivers approximately 10.3% of the assessed value of employee status; the O’Connor settlement at issue now would pay drivers approximately 7.3% of the assessed value of employee status (assuming Uber eventually paid the higher $100 million settlement value based upon the company’s valuation.) In both cases, the value of employee status is probably worth more than the assessed value of expense reimbursements.
The O‘Connor settlement still has yet to be approved or rejected by Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California. OnLabor will continue to monitor developments in the case.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
April 18
Two major New York City unions endorse Cuomo for mayor; Committee on Education and the Workforce requests an investigation into a major healthcare union’s spending; Unions launch a national pro bono legal network for federal workers.
April 17
Utahns sign a petition supporting referendum to repeal law prohibiting public sector collective bargaining; the US District Court for the District of Columbia declines to dismiss claims filed by the AFL-CIO against several government agencies; and the DOGE faces reports that staffers of the agency accessed the NLRB’s sensitive case files.
April 16
7th Circuit questions the relevance of NLRB precedent after Loper Bright, unions seek to defend silica rule, and Abrego Garcia's union speaks out.
April 15
In today’s news and commentary, SAG-AFTRA reaches a tentative agreement, AFT sues the Trump Administration, and California offers its mediation services to make up for federal cuts. SAG-AFTRA, the union representing approximately 133,000 commercial actors and singers, has reached a tentative agreement with advertisers and advertising agencies. These companies were represented in contract negotiations by […]
April 14
Department of Labor publishes unemployment statistics; Kentucky unions resist deportation orders; Teamsters win three elections in Texas.
April 13
Shawn Fain equivocates on tariffs; Trump quietly ends federal union dues collection; pro-Palestinian Google employees sue over firings.