This article explains what is included in the $1.8 billion Drivers’ Claims against Uber. This lawsuit was filed by a San Diego driver named Thomas Liu. Thomas was an Asian-American driver who had scored below the 4.6 minimum rating standard set by Uber. He was also a member of a minority group with a strong accent and many of his passengers became hostile toward him because of his accent. Liu had previously filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint against Uber, but that complaint was denied. He was able to sue in court after the EEOC denied his complaint.
Drivers’ claims valued at $1.8 billion
The escalating number of Uber driver claims is worrying. With the company being valued at $69 billion, it is no wonder that it has faced challenges from governments and labor advocates. Many have accused Uber of exploiting their drivers and unfairly charging them for trips. Fortunately, the company has acknowledged these issues and has promised to make changes to its pricing and incentive structures. Despite this, drivers are concerned that the company may face further cuts to their benefits and pay incentives.
As a result, Uber has settled a class-action lawsuit for $100 million while appealing the dismissal of the original claim. The suit alleged that Uber drivers were not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits because they were considered independent contractors, not employees. The company had initially rejected the claims as too small to recover, forcing the drivers into arbitration. However, a recent court decision has forced Uber to accept the settlement. This settlement is good news for drivers and will hopefully provide relief to thousands of drivers.
Uber’s policy to avoid enforcement activities
The issue with Uber’s approach to law enforcement is rooted in the company’s business model. Rather than punishing employees who break the law, Uber should consider changing its business model. The company has billions of rides in thousands of jurisdictions, and penalties can easily exceed several hundred dollars per ride. The legal department’s focus is not on enforcement activities. Instead, it seeks to foster an environment where employees are empowered to take action and follow the rules.
In large sting operations, city officials would buy dozens of cellphones and create several different accounts. Uber’s compliance team would then use device numbers from the cheapest smartphones to determine which users they were. They were able to assess who was riding on a particular phone by using the VTOS program signifiers. In addition, Uber has also hired a general manager to take the lead on enforcement activities in new cities.
Uber’s classification of drivers as independent contractors
While it may seem like a simple classification, the Uber classification of drivers as independent contractors has many ramifications. First, it would allow drivers to choose when they work and when they don’t. Secondly, independent contractors would not be entitled to the same benefits as employees, such as health insurance, paid sick leave, and federal and state income taxes. Lastly, independent contractors would not be able to change their pay structure or terminate their contracts as easily as employees.
In 2015, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey filed a lawsuit against the two companies, asking the court to reclassify the drivers as employees. The judge agreed, allowing Uber to proceed with its appeal. The case was eventually dismissed, but the U.S. District Court judge did not rule in favor of Uber and Lyft. A ruling is expected by the end of this year. In the meantime, the company must take steps to ensure its drivers maintain their status as independent contractors.
Uber’s agreement with drivers requires that disputes be resolved by arbitration
While it’s easy to see why Uber would want to avoid any form of arbitration, drivers have had a rough go of it recently. The company recently opted to opt out of an arbitration clause that required drivers to pay $14,500 upfront. This was deemed grossly disproportionate. But what does this mean for drivers? How can they opt out? Here are some options. Read on to learn more about this controversial issue.
The SCC determined that Uber’s arbitration clause violated the ESA, citing the presumption that drivers were employees. This is because the arbitration clause violates the Employment Standards Act and other public policy considerations. In addition, the arbitration clause is unconscionable because it obstructs the right to seek independent legal advice. Further, it fails to consider that a driver has a right to be treated fairly and is disadvantaged due to the lack of representation from an attorney.