US Supreme Court rebuffs Uber, Lyft bid to avoid California driver suits
Companies accused of misclassifying drivers as contractors
Uber and Lyft appealed lower court ruling against them
By Daniel Wiessner
Oct 7 (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge by Uber UBER.N and Lyft LYFT.O to lawsuits by the state of California on behalf of drivers who signed agreements to keep legal disputes with the ride-hailing companies out of court in a legal fight over their status as contractors.
The justices turned away appeals by the two companies of a lower court's ruling that let the Democratic-led state's attorney general and labor commissioner pursue claims that Uber and Lyft owe money to drivers who were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees.
The companies have argued that federal law bars states from suing on behalf of anyone who signed agreements to bring legal disputes in private arbitration rather than court. That includes more than 60 million U.S. workers and virtually any consumer who joins a subscription service, accepts a company's terms of service or registers a product.
California filed separate lawsuits against the companies in 2020. A state appeals court in 2023 ruled against the companies in their challenge to the lawsuits. The California Supreme Court subsequently declined to hear their appeals.
California is one of several Democratic-led states that have accused Uber and Lyft of depriving drivers of minimum wage, overtime pay, reimbursements for expenses and other protections by labeling them as independent contractors. Most federal and state wage laws apply only to employees, making it much cheaper for companies to hire contractors.
Uber, Lyft and other app-based services have denied that they are employers of "gig workers" who may benefit from the flexibility of contracting.
The industry has advocated for state ballot measures allowing companies to treat workers as contractors in exchange for providing certain benefits. California's top state court in July upheld such a measure backed by Uber and Lyft and overwhelmingly approved by voters in the state in 2020.
Uber and Lyft in June agreed to adopt a $32.50 hourly minimum pay standard for Massachusetts drivers and pay $175 million to settle a lawsuit by the Democratic-led state's attorney general alleging they improperly treated drivers as independent contractors.
Uber and Lyft also have been sued by thousands of U.S. drivers who have said they should have been treated as employees. But few of those cases have yielded definitive rulings and many of them have been sent to arbitration, since most of the drivers for the companies sign arbitration agreements.
FEATURE-How will the U.S. election affect America's gig workers? nL8N3KN22J
California top court upholds ballot measure treating Uber, Lyft drivers as independent contractors nL1N3JH13L
Uber, Lyft agree to minimum pay for Massachusetts drivers to settle lawsuit nL1N3IP0LT
Uber loses challenge to California gig work law in US appeals court nL1N3I80QF
Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York; Editing by Will Dunham
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
