O'connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

82 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D provides a service whereby individuals in need of vehicular transportation can log in to the D software application on their smartphone, request a ride, be paired via the application with an available driver, be picked up by the available driver, and ultimately be driven to their final destination. D receives a credit card payment from the rider at the end of the ride, a significant portion of which it then remits to the driver who transported the passenger. Ps drive for D's “UberBlack” service. D drivers transport passengers in black sedans (e.g., Lincoln Towncars) or other limousine-like vehicles. P gets access to a luxury vehicle through SF Bay and Bay Network Limo. In exchange for providing a car and paying all of P's expenses (e.g., fuel and tolls), SF Bay received sixty percent of P's earnings from transporting D passengers. Bay Network provided P with a luxury vehicle for a flat $735 weekly fee, which included maintenance and insurance on the vehicle, but no other expenses. Manahan and Gurfinkel drive for D's “uberX” service. They use their own personal vehicles, which are typically hybrids or other “mid-range” cars. Manahan drives for uberX, as well as Lyft and Sidecar, two of D's competitors. Each driver must sign contracts that the relationship between the transportation providers and D “is solely that of independent contracting parties.” D sets fares based on the miles traveled by the rider and the duration of the ride. D automatically deducts its own “fee per ride” from the fare before it remits the remainder to the driver. D takes roughly 20 percent of the total fare billed to a rider as its “fee per ride.” D notes that it owns no vehicles, and contends that it employs no drivers. In public statements, D has said: “We are ‘Everyone's Private Driver.’ We are Uber and we're rolling out a transportation system in a city near you.” D contends it exercises minimal control over how its transportation providers actually provide transportation services to D customers, an important factor in determining whether drivers are independent contractors. Drivers set their own hours and work schedules, provide their own vehicles, and are subject to little direct supervision. Ps vigorously dispute these contentions. D moved for summary judgment.