Uber Driver Wage Class Actions Won’t Be Consolidated, JPML Decides

Last Wednesday, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) refused to consolidate 17 class action lawsuits alleging Uber Technologies Inc. misclassified drivers as independent contractors. The JPML found that there is too much variation in the applicable state laws to justify grouping the Uber class action lawsuits into multidistrict litigation.

The Uber class action lawsuits were filed by Uber drivers from several states who allege that Uber misclassified its drivers as independent contractors and mishandled tips and driver expenses.

Because the Uber lawsuits bring forth similar issues, the plaintiffs from an Uber class action lawsuit filed in New York sought to centralize the Uber driver misclassification litigation in either the Northern District of California or the Western District of Texas.

“Although these action share certain factual issues regarding Uber’s classification of drivers as independent contractors and its business practices concerning payment of gratuities and business expenses to drivers, the standards for determining whether independent contractors are employees vary substantially from state to state and involve a broad range of factors which require consideration of distinct aspects of the alleged employer’s relationship with plaintiffs,” the panel wrote in its order declining consolidation of the Uber driver class action lawsuits.

In addition, the JPML found that several of the Uber driver class action lawsuits seek to represent state-specific Classes and do not bring charges that overlap with other cases.

“Denying centralization will keep the actions pending in the states where plaintiff and putative class members worked and where relevant witnesses and documents are likely to be found,” the panel continued.

The JPML concluded that the circumstances behind the Uber driver litigation make informal coordination of the Uber class action lawsuits a preferable action. The same attorneys are already representing almost half of the pending actions, and could feasibly be handled together informally, the panel suggested.

On Thursday of last week, U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen denied Uber’s request to prevent Douglas O’Connor and other plaintiffs in an Uber class action lawsuit pending in the Northern District of California to add claims under the Private Attorney General Act to their complaint. Uber had argued that the PAGA claims shouldn’t be added to a federal class action lawsuit because they had already been brought in a state court case.

Judge Chen said he would not rule on the O’Connor plaintiffs’ motion to amend their class action lawsuit to include the PAGA claims until the parties come up with a viable trial plan.

The New York Uber drivers are represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik of Napoli & Shkolnik PLLC.

The Uber Driver Misclassification Class Action Lawsuits are In re: Uber Technologies Inc. Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation, Case No. 2686, before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and Douglas O’Connor, et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03826, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Join a Free California Overtime, Wage & Hour Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you were forced to work off the clock or without overtime pay in California within the past 2 to 3 years, you have rights – and you don’t have to take on the company alone.

Get a Free Case Evaluation Now