In today’s news and commentary, the NLRB sues New York, a flight attendant sues United, and the Third Circuit considers the employment status of Uber drivers

The NLRB sued New York to block a new law that would grant the state authority over private-sector labor disputes. As reported on recently by Finlay, the law, which was passed on September 5^th, states that private-sector employees fall within the scope of the state’s Public Employment Relations (PERB) unless the NLRB asserts jurisdiction via a court order. The NLRB claims that the law is preempted by the NLRA, under precedent forth in Garmon, as it creates a conflicting, parallel system regulating private sector employees. Challenges to this law may hint at challenges to similar bills in California and Massachusetts.

A former United Airlines flight attendant, Ava Lawrey, filed a class action lawsuit in New Jersey federal court, seeking damages for herself and around 1,000 New Jersey-based flight attendants. She alleges United violated state wage laws by failing to pay for time spent on essential duties outside ‘actual’ flight time which is defined as the period between aircraft door closure and opening. Lawrey claims she regularly worked 12-hour shifts with 2–4 unpaid hours for tasks like security, pre-flight meetings, debriefings, and layovers. The lawsuit seeks back pay, overtime, and penalties up to 200% of unpaid wages, along with injunctive relief to stop future violations.

The Third Circuit appeared unwilling to allow a third trial in a decade-long dispute over whether Uber misclassified drivers for its now-defunct service, Uber Black, as independent contractors. The former drivers have asked the Third Circuit to restore their case which was dismissed by a district court after two separate juries failed to reach a verdict. The Third Circuit Judges questioned how many trials should be allowed before a case is deemed futile. Uber’s attorney called a third trial unfair, while the former drivers’ lawyer argued that the issue’s public importance justifies continuing the case. The case could set precedent for app-based gig worker classification amid nationwide battles over gig workers’ status as independent contractors or employees.