According to an unopposed motion for preliminary approval submitted last Friday, Uber Technologies Inc. and the plaintiffs, a group of approximately 1,330 drivers allegedly misclassified as contractors rather than employees by the rideshare company, have reached a settlement in the labor dispute and are asking for the court’s approval.
The settlement is the second in the case. The previous, approved in 2019, was a $20 million settlement on behalf of roughly 15,000 California and Massachusetts drivers who were not bound by Uber’s arbitration clause. The present settlement covers a much smaller class of California drivers for a much shorter period, the motion says.
The filing recounts the case’s history, starting with the filing of the class action complaint in October 2019. The plaintiff alleged that Uber treated drivers as independent contractors under California law, and as a result of their misclassification, drivers were owed expense reimbursement, minimum wage, overtime, and had not received itemized wage statements as required by state law.
The parties engaged in dismissal and preliminary injunction briefing. Allowing only certain claims to proceed, the court certified a class of California Uber drivers who opted out of Uber’s arbitration agreement and who drove between Feb. 28, 2019 and Dec. 16, 2020, the date of Proposition 22’s enactment. Proposition 22 was a California voter referendum that exempted gig economy companies such as Uber from the mandate that they classify drivers as employees.
The litigants reportedly reached a settlement while summary judgment briefing was underway. Last week’s request for preliminary approval asserts that the motion is fair, reasonable, and adequate under the circumstances. “Although this settlement (once again) does not resolve the question of whether Uber drivers are employees under California law, it is nonetheless of significant value to class members,” the motion says.
In addition, the plaintiffs argue that the non-reversionary settlement will provide class members with higher settlement amounts on a per mile basis than those already deemed fair and adequate by the court’s previous approval. The motion says that plaintiffs’ counsel intends to apply for fees not to exceed 25% of the gross settlement fund, or just over $2 million.
The plaintiffs are represented by Lichten & Liss-Riordan P.C. and Uber by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
