Lyft Drivers Say Wage and Hour Settlement Could Threaten Other Claims

Two Lyft drivers say a proposed wage and hour settlement of a class action lawsuit threatens claims they’re making in a separate legal action.

Plaintiffs Alex Zamora and Rayshon Clark have asked U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria to let them intervene in the Cotter v. Lyft class action lawsuit to represent their own interests in the proposed $27 million wage and hour settlement.

The two drivers are both plaintiffs in their own separate class action lawsuit against Lyft, in which they claim Lyft unlawfully took part of the premium fares it requires drivers to charge during periods of high demand.

The two drivers claim that Lyft’s taking a cut of the “prime-time” premium fares constitutes tip theft under California law. They also claim Lyft has violated the California Unfair Competition Law.

Zamora and Clark say this particular theory was never fully litigated in the Cotter class action lawsuit, nor was it accounted for during the negotiation of the proposed wage and hour settlement.

They argue the proposed settlement in Cotter could scuttle claims in their own separate action. For that reason, they argue the Cotter settlement should have a narrowed claims release.

Both are asking Judge Chhabria to reject the proposed settlement if it does not contain such a limitation.

The proposed Cotter wage and hour settlement, worth more than double an earlier $12 million agreement rejected by Judge Chhabria, takes into account new data from Lyft.

It also would restrict Lyft’s ability to “fire” its drivers to a limited list of for-cause reasons.

Cotter Parties Ready to Finalize Wage and Hour Settlement

Both Lyft and the Cotter plaintiffs oppose Zamora and Clark’s intervention. They say it’s too late for them to intervene now that a proposed settlement is ready to be offered for court approval.

Lyft argues that Zamora and Clark have no justification for intervening as late in the game as they are attempting to.

The company points out that Zamora and Clark are attempting to intervene three years into the Cotter action and five months after the parties reached their first settlement agreement.

The company also argues that allowing the two drivers to intervene this late in the game would set a bad precedent.

Lyft says future plaintiffs in similar positions would be encouraged to sidetrack settlement procedures by filing new actions that raise essentially the same claims but base them on different legal theories, solely in the interest of carving out a payoff for themselves.

Attorneys for Lyft argue that Zamora and Clark can still pursue their own claims by opting out of the Cotter wage and hour settlement and pursuing their own claims separately.

The Cotter plaintiffs also say that Zamora and Clark can make any arguments they want to about the Cotter settlement without intervening in the case itself.

Common to both class action lawsuits is the question of whether Lyft drivers are employees or independent contractors.

As employees, they would be eligible for certain legal protections under California law that are not also available to independent contractors.

The instant case is Cotter et al. v. Lyft Inc. et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-04065, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The intervenors’ separate Lyft Drivers Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit is Zamora et al. v. Lyft Inc. et al, Case No. 4:16-cv-02558, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: The California Lyft driver class action settlement is now open! Click here to file a claim.

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