Will Uber Drivers Choose Between Employee Status and Covid-19 Pay?

The arrival of the novel coronavirus left Uber drivers with a strange choice. Is immediate relief worth giving up on the end goal? Should they choose Covid-19 pay over employee status?

Capriole v. Uber Technologies Inc.: Transferred to California Court

Initially filed in Massachusetts federal court, Capriole v. Uber Technologies Inc. was transferred to the Northern District of California, where several almost identical lawsuits were already in process. Plaintiffs in the cases are gig drivers naming Uber and Lyft as defendants. Capriole claims Uber misclassifies drivers as independent contractors and fails to provide drivers with paid sick leave. The lack of paid sick leave and other traditional employee benefits posed apparent problems for drivers who sought benefits afforded those with employment status.

Covid-19 Makes this Misclassification Issue Harmful to the General Public

The spread of Covid-19 introduced a new, more universally felt consequence to this particular issue. Drivers with no access to sick pay are more likely to continue working while they are sick. As a result, the public, currently struggling to face the spread of Covid-19, is taking note of the situation. Uber drivers, when confronted with the choice to stay home with no pay and risk their livelihood, their housing, and ability to provide the necessities, are instead choosing to continue working even though they may risk exposing hundreds of passengers each week by doing so. 

The History of the Case:

Before the lawsuit was transferred to California, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to require Uber to reclassify drivers as employees and comply with wage and hour law (including laws requiring paid sick leave), urging the court to adopt California case law as precedent. Still, the Massachusetts court denied the application citing insufficient evidence of the risk of irreparable harm. Since the case was transferred to the Northern District of California, it has been renewed as an emergency motion, and the judge ordered the parties to start negotiations to come up with a temporary solution.  

The Introduction of Uber’s Covid-19 Sick Pay Policy:

Uber introduced a financial assistance policy for active drivers during the pandemic on April 10th. The updated plan would allow drivers to take advantage of up to 14 days of financial assistance if they test positive for Covid-19, are placed in quarantine, if a public health authority or licensed medical provider asks them to self-isolate, or if Uber restricts their account after a public health authority indicates the driver may have been exposed to Covid-19. While the policy is more generous than California law requires in terms of “time,” the eligibility requirements appear to be more restrictive.

Temporary Measures Do Not Address the Actual Problem:

Drivers, at least initially, are rejecting the proposed compromise stating that while it addresses a problem in the current scenario, it does not solve the actual problem. Drivers insist that the issue is not limited to whether they are sick or not, etc. but whether they are entitled to wages and the other traditional benefits of employment under California labor law. Some are calling the financial assistance Uber offered through the recently updated policy a bandaid that is preventing (or at least delaying) resolution of the underlying problem.

If you have questions about misclassification or if you need to file a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.