Abstract
I. Introduction
II. Background ... A. The “Sharing” Economy ... B. Who Is an Employee? ... 1. Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors ... 2. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ... 3. California Wage and Hour Laws
III. Litigation for Ride Platforms in the Sharing Economy … A. Trouble for Uber Begins in Berwick v. Uber Technologies, Inc. ... 1. Facts ... 2. California Labor Commission Finds Uber Driver Is Employee ... B. California District Court Weighs in: O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. ... 1. Facts ... 2. The California District Court Weighs in on Uber’s Alleged Misclassification ... C. Lyft Encounters Misclassification Litigation in Cotter v. Lyft ... 1. Facts ... 2. The California District Court Addresses Lyft’s Alleged Misclassification
IV. Analysis ... A. Drivers for Ride Platforms Are Likely Employees Under Existing California Multifactor Test ... 1. Berwick Does Not Establish That All Uber Drivers Are Employees ... 2. Other California Misclassification Cases Suggest Ride Platform Drivers Are Employees ... B. Uber and Lyft Drivers Are Likely Employees Under the Expansive View of the FLSA ... 1. The Extent to Which the Work Performed As an Integral Part of the Employer’s Business ... 2. The Worker’s Opportunity for Profit or Loss Depending on His or Her Managerial Skill ... 3. The Extent of the Relative Investments of the Employer and the Workers ... 4. Whether the Work Performed Requires Special Skills and Initiative ... 5. The Permanency of the Relationship ... 6. The Degree of Control Exercised or Retained by the Employer ... C. Existing Labor Laws Should Not Apply to Workers in the Sharing Economy
V. Conclusion
Recommended Citation
Alyssa M. Stokes,
Driving Courts Crazy: A Look at How Labor and Employment Laws Do Not Coincide with Ride Platforms in the Sharing Economy,
95 Neb. L. Rev. 853
(2016)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol95/iss3/7