Backlash Intensifies Over Uber Drivers Settlement

Uber drivers along with the company itself are responding forcefully to objectors of the recently negotiated controversial $100 million settlement.

The proposed Uber settlement, if approved, would halt two class action lawsuits claiming that the online transportation network misclassified Uber drivers as independent contractors.

Both Uber and the Class maintain that Uber drivers risk getting nothing if these class action lawsuits seeking benefits, higher pay, and job protections go to trial.

In a motion filed in late May, the class of Uber drivers disputed objectors’ attempts to remove Shannon Liss-Riordan, lead class counsel, from the cases.

“If this settlement is scuttled, there is no guarantee that Uber drivers will get anything,” Shannon Liss-Riordan, the attorney for Uber drivers, wrote in a response to the objections that were filed late last month in San Francisco federal court. “Plaintiffs negotiated the best deal possible that would result in fair monetary and non-monetary benefits to” drivers.

The Class also challenged the objections, contending they have no merit because they are based on a flawed legal argument that the settlement is designed to pit California and Massachusetts Uber drivers against one another.

“This is the opposite of compromising the claims of one group for another — it is ensuring that each group, and each driver in each group, receives a fair portion of the settlement fund,” the brief said.

Uber Lawsuit Settlement Objections

Under the Uber lawsuit settlement, which must still be approved by a federal judge in California, Uber would pay $84 million to drivers — $100 million if the company eventually goes public — in proportion to how many miles each drove.

The company also agreed to “deactivate” drivers only for violating specific clauses in a new driver policy, to allow deactivated Uber drivers to appeal the decision, to stop suggesting to passengers that tips are included in Uber fares, and to meet quarterly with union-like “Drivers Associations.”

A number of Uber drivers — including, the initial plaintiff in Liss-Riordan’s case — expressed dismay at the deal. Many are disappointed they will still have to pay for their own gas and other expenses, while not receiving any wages for the time they spend waiting for fares.

Some Uber drivers also want more money than the $4,000 to $8,000 payouts frequent drivers would receive under the deal; others complained that the language of the pact allows Uber to continue deactivating drivers for any reason as long as it provides a written explanation.

As a result, attorneys for some Uber drivers have filed objections to the settlement, or sought to replace Liss-Riordan as leader of the class action lawsuits. They argued Uber made few meaningful nonmonetary concessions, and that even those will expire in two years.

The settlement also conceded the central claim of the lawsuits too easily, they argued, allowing Uber to continue classifying its drivers as independent contractors and not employees. “The court should not be fooled,” an attorney for Los Angeles driver Steven Price wrote in a recent filing. “There is no real ‘change’ in the proposed settlement.”

Several other lawyers took issue with the settlement because it would block their own lawsuits against Uber. Los Angeles lawyer Mark Geragos, known for representing high-profile clients including Michael Jackson and singer Chris Brown, accused Liss-Riordan of improperly conspiring with Uber.

“It’s obvious what happened here,” he said, “Ms. Riordan decided she was going to go into a mediation with Uber, she was going to give global peace to Uber, and she was going to do it by … hijacking another case in this very courtroom. And that is what on its face shows collusion.”

Geragos represents former named plaintiff Douglas O’Connor, who recently withdrew his support from the settlement and cut ties with Liss-Riordan.

Geragos and other attorneys claim the settlement unfairly prohibits them from holding Uber accountable for failing to provide drivers with benefits including overtime pay, meal breaks and workers’ compensation pay — claims they say are worth much more than what Liss-Riordan got for them.

“Here, instead of considering the value of the orders to the ‘legal community as a whole’ or what is in the ‘public interest,’ Liss-Riordan lobbies for a result that benefits no one but herself and Uber,” the Uber settlement objectors’ brief stated. “The court should not allow Liss-Riordan to ride roughshod over their rights for her own selfish purposes.”

Still, Uber and Uber drivers join Liss-Riordan in defending the settlement, calling it “a compelling and eminently reasonable deal that is entitled to preliminary approval.” They also noted that only about 30 Uber drivers filed objections, out of a potential class of 380,000.

The Uber drivers are represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan and Adelaide Pagano of Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC and Matthew D. Carlson of Carlson Legal Services.

The Uber settlement objectors are represented by attorneys from Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, The Hamner Law Offices APC, Geragos & Geragos APC and Aiman-Smith & Marcy.

The Uber Driver Misclassification Class Action Lawsuits are O’Connor et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03826, and Hakan Yucesoy v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al, Case No. 15-cv-00262, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: On Aug. 18, 2016, a California federal judge rejected Uber’s proposed $100 million wage & hour class action settlement finding that an arbitration provision included in the agreement may unfairly benefit Uber and deserves further consideration before determining if the deal is worthy of approval.

UPDATE 2: May 2019, the Calif., Mass., Uber driver misclassification class action settlement is now open. Click here to file a claim.

Join a Free Uber Driver Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you are an Uber driver who lives in Indiana, Central or Southern Illinois, or Wisconsin, you may be eligible to join a class action lawsuit investigation into claims they you were misclassified as independent contractors. Find out if you qualify.

Get a Free Case Evaluation Now