Quantcast

Rideshare Giant Accused of Misclassifying Drivers Amidst Legal Battle Over Worker Rights

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Saturday, December 21, 2024

Rideshare Giant Accused of Misclassifying Drivers Amidst Legal Battle Over Worker Rights

State Court
Webp 9444jx41nt548mz7q1l1oqc0vxcc

Santa Clara County Court House | Official Website

Lyft, a prominent rideshare company, is facing legal challenges over alleged labor violations concerning its drivers. On December 11, 2024, Carol Grey filed a complaint against Lyft in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara. The lawsuit accuses Lyft of misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, which Grey argues is a violation of California's labor laws.

The case centers around several key allegations. Grey claims that Lyft has been willfully misclassifying its delivery drivers, including herself, in violation of Cal. Labor Code § 226.8. This misclassification has purportedly led to drivers bearing their own business expenses and not receiving proper wages or benefits as required by law. Specifically, Grey alleges that Lyft failed to reimburse her for vehicle and phone expenses necessary for her work, in breach of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802.

Furthermore, the complaint highlights that Lyft has not been paying minimum wage or overtime to its drivers as mandated by Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1197, 1198, 510 and 554. It also points out deficiencies in the itemized wage statements provided by Lyft, which do not clearly explain the piece-rate basis on which drivers are paid nor separate wages from tips.

Grey's lawsuit also references significant legislative changes impacting gig economy workers like those at Lyft. The California Supreme Court's Dynamex decision and subsequent Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) established stricter criteria for classifying workers as independent contractors using the "ABC" test. However, Proposition 22 later altered these standards specifically for app-based companies like Lyft by allowing them to classify drivers as independent contractors under certain conditions.

Despite Proposition 22’s provisions favoring companies like Lyft, Grey argues that the company still fails to meet even these relaxed standards due to consistent underpayment practices and lack of adherence to guaranteed minimum compensation requirements outlined in Cal. Bus. & Prof. C. § 7453.

Grey seeks compensatory damages for unpaid wages and expenses along with restitution for unfair business practices under Cal. Bus & Prof Code §17200 et seq., claiming that these violations have broader implications beyond just affecting individual drivers—they burden taxpayers and harm fair competition within the industry.

Representing Carol Grey are attorneys Todd M. Friedman, Adrian R. Bacon, and Matthew R. Snyder from the Law Offices of Todd M Friedman P.C., based in Woodland Hills California; while no specific judge is mentioned yet presiding over this case identified as Case No:24CV453709 at Santa Clara County Superior Court

More News