On June 16 San Francisco-based rideshare service Uber Technologies filed notice that it intends to appeal a decision issued by the California Labor Commissioner earlier this month, which determined that a former driver should have been classified as an employee, not an independent contractor. The driver, Barbara Berwick, sought unpaid wages, expenses, and penalties under California law.<\/p>\n
The Labor Commissioner evaluated Berwick\u2019s employment status using multiple criteria developed by California courts over the past three decades.\u00a0 Those criteria include, among others, whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal or alleged employer; whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, or place for the person to do their work; whether a special skill is involved; whether the work is done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision; the length of time the services are to be performed; the degree of permanence of the working relationship; and the degree of control exerted over the laborer by the employer.\u00a0 Rejecting evidence offered by Uber, the Labor Commissioner found that, on balance, Uber asserted enough control over her work and \u201cevery aspect of [its] operation\u201d that Berwick was properly characterized as an Uber employee (despite the parties\u2019 written agreement to the contrary.)<\/p>\n
The Labor Commissioner awarded Berwick reimbursement for miles driven, as a reimbursable expense necessarily incurred in the course of her employment, plus interest ($4,152 in total)\u2014but did not award her unpaid wages or overtime. \u00a0Curiously, Berwick offered no evidence suggesting that Uber had failed to pay her or her corporation, Berwick Enterprises, in full under the independent contractor agreement.\u00a0 And, it will be interesting to see what, if any, effect the remittance of payments to Berwick\u2019s corporation has on the Superior Court\u2019s review.<\/p>\n
The ruling has garnered far more attention than is typical for a Labor Commission decision: Berwick is but one claimant, and Labor Commission decisions have minimal precedential value.\u00a0 But Uber is no ordinary employer given the fundamental importance of \u201cindependent contractors\u201d to its business model, its self-characterization as being merely a \u201ctechnological platform,\u201d and the aggressive stance it has taken on the independent contractor\/employee debate amid other pending class action challenges to its classification practices.\u00a0 Moreover, the ongoing independent contractor\/employee debate affects companies all over the country that are operating with equally questionable labor models.<\/p>\n
Employers and employees\u2014and the attorneys advising them\u2014would undoubtedly benefit from renewed legislative attention that revisits the various, aging \u201cmultifactor\u201d tests for employer-contractor classification, with an eye towards 21st century technology and work patterns.\u00a0 Until that occurs, the Labor Commissioner\u2019s recent ruling confirms that, at least in California, governmental authorities will continue to apply close scrutiny to independent contractor agreements against the practical realities of workers\u2019 labors, and the general presumption of employment\u2014with the stated interest of preventing the sorts of abuses the employment laws were designed to prevent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On June 16 San Francisco-based rideshare service Uber Technologies filed notice that it intends to appeal a decision issued by the California Labor Commissioner earlier this month, which determined that a former driver should have been classified as an employee, not an independent contractor. The driver, Barbara Berwick, sought unpaid wages, expenses, and penalties under…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[581,585,577,583,582,32,579,580,584,578],"ppma_author":[2085],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n