Judge expresses notable concerns over proposed $100M settlement in Uber case
on
Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
by Cyrus Farivar
SAN FRANCISCO—New lawyers for dozens of Uber drivers who
feel that the previous lead attorney did not represent their interests
in a proposed class action settlement forcefully argued on Thursday for
the deal to be halted.
385,000
current and former drivers in California and Massachusetts. The
settlement requires sign-off by the judge to take effect.
However, some Uber drivers, including lead plaintiff Douglas
O’Connor, feel the settlement was grossly insufficient and that the
underlying issue—whether drivers should be treated as employees rather
than contractors—remains unresolved.
Classifying Uber drivers as employees rather than contractors would
entitle them to a number of benefits under federal law. This includes
unemployment benefits, workers’ compensation, the right to unionize, and
most importantly the right to seek reimbursement for mileage and tips.
This reclassification would also incur new and significant costs for
Uber.
Uber attorney Theodore Boutrous reiterated
to US District Judge Edward Chen that anyone who wants to remove
themselves from the class and pursue legal claims on their own is free
to do so.
"I do think that people who opt out of the case could band together and could seek to bring another case," he said in court.
Similarly, Shannon Liss-Riordan,
the lead attorney who initially represented O’Connor and continues to
represent the certified class of drivers essentially argued that she got
the best deal that she could. If the proposed settlement is approved,
her firm would receive $25 million in fees.
"The reality is that had we not been able to give Uber that
global peace, there would not have been a resolution and we would not
have been able to obtain the monetary and non-monetary benefits that I
believe are significant," she said. "That was my judgement, others may
disagree, it is for the court to determine whether this settlement we
have proposed is a fair and adequate settlement."
However, Judge Chen expressed significant concern that the
settlement was "giving away" rights to future litigation and forces
future disputes to arbitration, a private process that largely favors
corporations.
Let's make a deal?
O’Connor lambasted the terms of the settlement in a court filing weeks after it was agreed upon:
When I initiated the O’Connor action nearly 3
years ago, I did so because it was apparent to me that the failure to
properly classify Uber drivers as employees presented the most
significant hazard to the economy and public safety in a generation. A
"gig economy" does not mean an economy without rules and regulations
that protect both driver and passenger. Employee protections exist for
the benefit of employees and the communities they serve. The fact that
services now take place across Internet applications like Uber does not
vitiate these employee protections or make these protections less
necessary. Unfortunately, the magnitude of this generational threat was
given short shrift in the O’Connor class action as almost no meaningful
discovery or depositions were taken, but where the average Uber driver
will now receive an offensive settlement worth less than a tank of gas. I
cannot in good conscience support this disastrous settlement agreement.
Similarly, Steven Price, the lead plaintiff in a related case filed in state court in Los Angeles (Price v. Uber),
argued in his own filings that the proposed settlement terms are
"illusory," and that "over half of the Settlement Class stand to receive
less than $25 from the proposed Settlement."
The main goal of the O’Connor case, and every
other related case including the Price action, is to have Uber drivers
declared to be "employees" rather than "independent contractors" under
California law. The proposed settlement would abandon this goal and
unjustifiably concede that the drivers are and have been independent
contractors. Thus, the main aspect of the proposed settlement is
contrary to the original goal of the lawsuit. This Court should not
approve a settlement agreement that is contrary to the original goal of
the lawsuit.
If drivers convince a judge that they should be considered employees,
it would represent a momentous victory over Uber—but that proposition
remains a tall order at this stage.
Uber's attorneys argued
in filings last month that the settlement should be approved, as the
objectors constitute a "minuscule percentage (0.00008 percent) of the
potential settlement class members," and therefore cannot halt the
settlement process at this stage.
"If the objectors believe the settlement is unfair or
inadequate, they are entitled to object again at the final approval
stage and/or opt out of the settlement class–not defeat the settlement
in its entirety," Theane Evangelis wrote.
Further, she added, while the average monetary reward for
each driver would be relatively small, "these objections generally do
not account for, or even mention, the substantial risk that there would
be no recovery on these claims."
In court, Boutrous also argued that Uber has agreed to
implement numerous non-monetary policies, including creating a "Drivers
Association," which will be able to represent drivers to the management
each quarter.
"One way to work out the issues is for individuals to
litigate their claims and that likely will happen," he said. "This
settlement is a landmark and it advances the entire enterprise and I
don’t want to get that lost as we go right to the objectors."
Similarly, Liss-Riordan retorted to the objecting attorneys: "I did the best we could under the circumstances."
Judge Chen is expected to rule on the matter within the coming months.
Comments
Post a Comment