Case Analysis : ' The Crucible ' Essay

974 Words Oct 29th, 2016 4 Pages
According to Edward Chen, United States District Judge, plaintiffs claimed that Uber misclassified drivers as independent contractors rather than employees (“Order Denying Plaintiffs”, 1). In addition, O’Connor and plaintiffs contended that drivers did not receive any proceeds from gratuity such as tips. Ultimately, both of these claims violate California Labor Codes and California’s Unfair Competition Law. On the other hand, Uber has argued that their drivers set their own work schedule and hours, which would consider its drivers cannot be employees (“Order Denying Plaintiffs”, 3). However, O’Connor and plaintiffs argued that Uber exercised authority and supervision over driver’s provision of transportation services. To determine whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor, the court applied California’s two-step process (“Order Denying Plaintiffs”, 3). The first process was to determine if the drivers provided a service for Uber. This part of the procedure was concluded that drivers do in fact provide a service for Uber, since Uber is essentially a technologically advanced, transportation company. For the second step of the process, the court had to primarily determine if the employer, Uber, had the right to control work details. A jury was used to determine this outcome and concluded that Uber did exercise authority and supervision on drivers. As a result, O’Connor and plaintiffs were successful with their legal claims against Uber. Shortly before the…

Related Documents