Uber is in one lawsuit after another.
Below marked UBER DRIVERS is a class action that you may be able to include your name and get a settlement from.
Uber is also in a lawsuit in Philadelphia. The lawsuit argues Uber has misclassified the Uber Black drivers as independent contractors rather than actual employees in order to avoid paying them wages, unemployment taxes, social security, workers' compensation premiums, disability taxes and other mandatory benefits
January 1,2016 a driver dropped his passenger off. When the driver heard crunch and saw his left rear door pinned back. Uber was notified a incident report was filled out the insurance is willing to cover the damage but Uber refuses to pay for the deductible.
If you read their policy.
3. YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES
USER ACCOUNTS.
In order to use most aspects of the Services, you must register for and maintain an active personal user Services account ("Account"). You must be at least 18 years of age, or the age of legal majority in your jurisdiction (if different than 18), to obtain an Account. Account registration requires you to submit to Uber certain personal information, such as your name, address, mobile phone number and age, as well as at least one valid payment method (either a credit card or accepted payment partner). You agree to maintain accurate, complete, and up-to-date information in your Account. Your failure to maintain accurate, complete, and up-to-date Account information, including having an invalid or expired payment method on file, may result in your inability to access and use the Services or Uber's termination of this Agreement with you. You are responsible for all activity that occurs under your Account, and you agree to maintain the security and secrecy of your Account username and password at all times. Unless otherwise permitted by Uber in writing, you may only possess one Account.
USER REQUIREMENTS AND CONDUCT.
The Service is not available for use by persons under the age of 18. You may not authorize third parties to use your Account, and you may not allow persons under the age of 18 to receive transportation or logistics services from Third Party Providers unless they are accompanied by you. You may not assign or otherwise transfer your Account to any other person or entity. You agree to comply with all applicable laws when using the Services, and you may only use the Services for lawful purposes (e.g., no transport of unlawful or hazardous materials). You will not in your use of the Services cause nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience, or property damage, whether to the Third Party Provider or any other party. In certain instances you may be asked to provide proof of identity to access or use the Services, and you agree that you may be denied access to or use of the Services if you refuse to provide proof of identity.
So if the passenger is responsible for the damage then why isn't UBER covering the $1,000.00 deductible.
UBER DRIVERS
Read here about an important lawsuit brought by Uber drivers to recover the tips they should have received and reimbursement for expenses
uber taxi & limo drivers
Uber drivers have filed a class action lawsuit claiming they have been misclassified as independent contractors and are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses that Uber should have to pay, like for gas and vehicle maintenance. The lawsuit also challenges Uber’s practice of telling passengers that the gratuity is included and not to tip the drivers, even though you are not getting a tip!!
THIS CASE HAS NOW BEEN SET FOR TRIAL IN JUNE 2016!
We won a major victory on March 11, 2015, when the judge overseeing the case, Judge Edward M. Chen, of the federal district court in San Francisco, denied Uber’s motion for summary judgment! In his decision, the judge agreed with many of our arguments about why Uber drivers may be properly classified as employees. Under the court’s order, the case will go to trial before a jury. See the news stories below for reports on the ruling.
We won another important victory on December 9, 2015, when the court issued its final order certifying the case as a class action. Under this decision, the case will now include all drivers who have contracted with Uber directly and in their own name (not through intermediate companies) in California since 2009.
This decision was a major victory because, in an earlier class certification order, the court had excluded from the case all drivers who have driven for Uber since June 2014 (unless they had opted out of Uber’s arbitration clause). The court has now ruled that Uber’s arbitration clause is unenforceable, and thus it cannot be used to keep drivers out of this case.
Uber is attempting to appeal this ruling striking the arbitration clause. In the event that drivers will need to file individual arbitrations, we are keeping a list of drivers who are interested in bringing claims individually. If you want to be on our list, please contact us for a form. Nearly two thousand Uber drivers from around the country have already contacted us to join our list.
Importantly, the court excluded from the class all drivers who have driven for Uber using a corporate name, or through an intermediate company (like a limousine company). If you fall into this category and want to pursue a claim for misclassification, please contact us. We have filed a new case on behalf of drivers who drove through limo companies or used corporate names with Uber, but you will need to contact us to be part of this case.
We filed this case on behalf of Uber drivers across the country. In an early ruling, agreed with us that the case could proceed on behalf of drivers nationwide. In a later ruling, however, the judge changed his mind and limited the case to drivers in California. We think this decision was incorrect and we plan to appeal it. But meanwhile, if you have driven for Uber anywhere in the United States, and want to join our list of interested drivers, for whom we may be able to pursue individual claims if they are not able to join the class action, please contact us.
In a recent decision, the California Labor Commissioner ruled that an Uber driver was indeed an employee, not an independent contractor, and ordered Uber to reimburse the driver for her expenses. However, Uber has appealed the decision, which will be reviewed de novo in court, and so the driver who won the case has not yet received reimbursement and will have to await the outcome of court proceedings. The remedy ordered by the California Labor Commissioner is the same remedy we are seeking for all Uber drivers in the class action lawsuit. This decision was a great result and may be helpful to our lawsuit.
In addition to the decision by the California Labor Commissioner, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board has ruled that an Uber driver is an employees eligible to obtain unemployment benefits. Similarly, the Bureau of Labor and Industries of the State of Oregon has recently issued an Advisory Opinion that Uber drivers are employees.
Uber has been arguing that drivers are independent contractors, and not employees, because they can set their own hours, and Uber makes much of the fact that drivers like setting their own schedules. We don’t disagree that drivers like to be able to work whenever they want! The fact that drivers set their own schedules does not make them independent contractors. We are not challenging Uber's system of providing flexibility for its drivers! We believe that, as Uber operates now, drivers are employees under California law. So if we win this case, there is no reason drivers should lose their flexibility. The judge has agreed that nothing about this case is challenging the drivers being able to set their own hours. Our argument is simply that, under the law, when drivers are working for Uber, they are Uber's employees and must receive the wage protections that employees receive.
If you have any questions, feel free to call or email Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lead attorney representing the Uber drivers, or her assistant, Erin O’Reilly, at (617) 994-5800 or eoreilly@llrlaw.com.
Attorney Liss-Riordan and her firm have represented thousands of tipped employees, and employees who have been misclassified as independent contractors, all around the country. See her firm’s website for more information: www.llrlaw.com.
Click here to read a copy of the lawsuit complaint.
Click here to read the court’s summary judgment order of March 11, 2015.
Click here to read the court’s class certification order of September 2, 2015.
Click here to read a transcript of the summary judgment hearing held on January 30, 2015.
Click here to read a transcript of the class certification hearing held on August 6, 2015.
In order to join our list of drivers interested in the case, and to sign up for us to represent you individually in the event that we need to pursue individual cases (such as in arbitration) to collect any wages that may be owed to you based on Uber’s misclassification of drivers, PLEASE CONTACT US to obtain a form to return to us.
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
www.llrlaw.com
Tel: (617) 994-5800
Fax: (617) 994-5801
Erin O'Reilly, Assistant
eoreilly@llrlaw.com
Elizabeth Lopez, Paralegal
elopez@llrlaw.com
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lead Counsel
sliss@llrlaw.com
Adelaide Pagano, Associate Attorney
apagano@llrlaw.com
Uber cannot legally retaliate against you for cooperating with the lawsuit.
