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
July 3
Unions seek a preliminary injunction to prevent USDA downsizing; the D.C. District Court issues a preliminary injunction against new student loan regulations; Matt Bruenig releases an analysis of Starbucks’ ongoing legal battle against Starbucks Workers United.
July 2
First Circuit denies federal worker unions’ mandamus petition; federal court denies preliminary injunction against new union reporting rule; House introduces the Securing Agriculture’s Workforce Act.
July 1
Trump nominates Keith Sonderling as Labor Secretary; DOL eliminates disparate-impact liability from Title VI regulations; OPM finalizes rule allowing suitability-based removal of federal employees for post-appointment conduct.
June 30
SCOTUS ends removal protections for agencies; staff at NYC cocktail bar vote to unionize.
June 29
In today’s News and Commentary, student-athletes file a class action suit challenging the NCAA’s new Age-Based Rule, a federal judge declines to issue a preliminary injunction against FEMA’s reduction in force but expedites proceedings, and Gavin Newsom opposes California’s proposed billionaire tax in favor of a federal approach. On Thursday, DeJuan Campbell, at basketball player […]
June 28
Philadelphia utility workers announce July 4 strike; national parks workers vote to unionize; Michigan considers “right to disconnect” bill.