California Workers Secure Major Victory as Court Rules Against Uber

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

The California Supreme Court delivered a blow to Uber by allowing a lawsuit to proceed that alleges the company failed to reimburse UberEats drivers for work-related expenses. The ruling has the potential to reshape the landscape of the gig economy and strengthen employee rights.

The case centers around UberEats driver Erik Adolph, who filed a lawsuit against Uber in 2019. Adolph argues that Uber misclassified UberEats drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, thus avoiding the obligation to reimburse work-related expenses, as mandated by California law.

Despite signing an agreement to resolve work-related legal claims through private arbitration, Adolph’s lawsuit asserts that he did not waive his right to sue on behalf of a larger group of workers. The California Supreme Court unanimously agreed, emphasizing that nothing in the state’s Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) prevents workers from pursuing individual claims in arbitration while simultaneously litigating collective claims in court.

  

What

Where

Search Jobs

PAGA is a unique California law that empowers workers to sue employers for labor law violations on behalf of the state. Successful claimants retain a quarter of the awarded compensation, while the remaining amount funds a labor law enforcement agency.

Time to fill a position? BCG Attorney Search can help you find the perfect candidate.

This court ruling challenges the significance of a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving Viking River Cruises, which allowed companies to compel individual PAGA claims into arbitration. It also implies that California employers may face an increase in large-scale lawsuits as a result.

In response to the ruling, Uber’s attorney, Theane Evangelis, stated that it contradicts the Viking River decision and violates federal law, which mandates the enforcement of valid arbitration agreements. She added that the company is exploring its appellate options.

On the other side, Michael Rubin, representing Adolph, believes that the ruling may prompt companies to reconsider the enforcement of arbitration agreements if substantial PAGA lawsuits can still proceed in court. Rubin, who also represented the plaintiff in the Viking River case, sees the decision as a victory for workers’ rights.

Mandatory arbitration agreements are prevalent among over half of nonunionized U.S. private sector employees. These agreements typically prohibit employees from initiating or participating in traditional class-action lawsuits.

Critics argue that mandatory arbitration discourages workers from pursuing individual claims, particularly for smaller amounts, and that employees who opt for arbitration are more likely to lose their cases. However, proponents of arbitration claim that it offers a faster and more efficient resolution compared to court proceedings, enabling workers to recover more compensation.

Business groups celebrated last year’s Viking River ruling, as it aimed to prevent plaintiffs in California from circumventing arbitration by leveraging PAGA. Industry associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, voiced concerns through briefs filed in the current case, warning that ruling against Uber could encourage frivolous lawsuits and pressure companies into settling them.

The California Supreme Court, however, directed these concerns toward state legislators, suggesting that any changes to the law should be pursued through legislative channels.

With this significant ruling, the California Supreme Court has opened the door for UberEats drivers and potentially other gig economy workers to challenge their classification as independent contractors. The outcome of this case could reverberate throughout the gig economy, influencing the treatment of workers and the enforcement of labor laws in California and potentially beyond.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.