December 3 was the first day of the new legislative session in California, the first day that members could introduce bills for the 2019-2020 legislative session. If the first day is any indication, there is one issue that will dominate employment policy discussion in 2019: Dynamex, Dynamex and Dynamex.
Last week was a bad week for gig economy companies in Oregon. It wasn’t just the post-holiday malaise that so many suffer from after having to return to work following a long, relaxing weekend that probably included eating too much turkey.
We’ve been expecting this since August, when the New York City Council passed a proposal establishing that ride-sharing driver should earn a minimum rate of pay, the first such minimum wage in the nation. Today, the other shoe dropped and the minimum wage was set.
The Grubhub misclassification battle, which has dominated gig economy headlines for the past year or so, has taken another interesting turn. An Uber driver has jumped into the fray, offering his opinion about why the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should conclude that the Grubhub driver at issue was incorrectly classified as an independent contractor.
Sure, the monetary portion of the settlement—$10 million to a class of approximately 400 Uber software engineers and over $2.6M in attorneys’ fees—is pretty eye-opening. But perhaps the more significant part of the settlement agreement that was just agreed to by a federal court judge on Wednesday were all of the non-monetary terms.
The first-ever trial on the gig economy misclassification to reach a judicial merits determination has now turned into the first-ever appeal on gig economy misclassification. And late Friday evening, the plaintiff seeking to overturn the ruling filed his opening appeals brief with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. We’ve covered the Lawson v. Grubhub decision in detail over the past year; if you want to refresh your memory, feel free to catch up by reading any of our posts. In sum, a federal trial court ruled in February 2018 that Grubhub correctly classified plaintiff Raef Lawson as an independent contractor and rejected his misclassification claim, but then the California Supreme Court changed the game a few months later by adopting the strict ABC test for misclassification in the now infamous Dynamex case. How will the Dynamex decision impact the Gurbhub appeal? We’re not sure, but we know how the plaintiff feels about it. We digested the 61-page appeals brief and can give you the three most important takeaways from the filing.
One of the drawbacks of entering the gig economy as a worker is that gig businesses are somewhat hamstrung by current law from providing a raft of benefits usually associated with full-time employment. That’s because companies that provide such benefits could run themselves into a problem by casting themselves close to the “employer” side of the misclassification debate. It’s a concern we have frequently written about, most recently just last month when Uber announced vague plans to begin offering benefits to its drivers. Now Lyft has joined the fray in a creative manner.
Credit Uber with being one of the first companies to enter the gig economy space and changing the way the world thinks about the entire industry. The company now seems poised to change the way you think of Uber itself.
Bloomberg Law’s Jaclyn Diaz wrote a very interesting story earlier this week asking whether the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) would soon issue an opinion letter to aid gig economy companies with commonplace labor and employment issues—namely, the ever-present threat of misclassification. Unfortunately, the story seems to indicate that such a letter is not on the horizon anytime soon, but it does describe the current atmosphere as one that could soon support such an opinion.
During Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit earlier this week, Uber’s CEO Dara Khosrowshahi dropped a bombshell: the company wants to soon provide benefits to its drivers in an effort to close the gap between what is received by its contractor fleet and its employee workforce. If this comes to fruition, it could revolutionize the way that gig workers are compensated, could lead to even more people jumping into the gig worker pool—and could spark a renewed misclassification battle over contractor status.