Razak v. Uber: Jeremy Abay’s Landmark Challenge to the Gig Economy 

On weekday afternoons in Philadelphia, a small community of Uber Black drivers gathers in the airport waiting lot. They trade stories about riders and app glitches while keeping their phones close, hoping for the next big fare. It was in this unremarkable setting that Jeremy Abay first heard accounts that conflicted with Uber’s public narrative about how it treats drivers. 

Drivers described their work for Uber as a full-time job—a stark contrast from the flexible, independent work the company advertised. The app determined which rides they received, how quickly they had to respond, and whether they would continue to get work at all. Many had been disciplined for their driver ratings. Uber also deducted business costs, including insurance premiums, vehicle financing, and regulatory fees, from their earnings.  

To understand the scope of the issue, Jeremy spent months talking with Uber drivers across the city. A clear picture emerged of work shaped less by entrepreneurial freedom and more by algorithmic control. These observations became the foundation for Razak v. Uber, one of the first cases to challenge the gig economy’s contractor model under longstanding labor laws. 

Exposing the Gig Economy 

Most lawsuits against gig companies are diverted into private arbitration because of the mandatory terms and conditions that users agree to when they sign up for the app. But while reviewing one of Uber’s app updates before filing Razak, Jeremy spotted something unusual: a short window in which drivers could opt out of arbitration. 

He moved quickly, opting out as many Uber Black drivers as possible. As a result, Razak became one of the few misclassification cases to avoid arbitration. And after a precedential Third Circuit decision reversing summary judgment, it became the first wage-and-hour case against a major gig-economy platform to reach a jury. 

This trial posed a fundamental question about gig work: How much control can a platform exert before a worker must be classified as an employee? 

Related: Are Uber and DoorDash Drivers Entitled to Workers’ Compensation Benefits in PA? 

Advocating for Clearer Standards 

 The Razak case has been tried twice so far, with both trials ending in a hung jury. These results did not reflect the quality of the evidence so much as the confounding legal test the jurors were asked to apply.  

The federal economic realities test, which governs employee status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, is notoriously difficult to navigate. It asks jurors to weigh multiple overlapping factors, none of which are decisive, leaving them unsure about how to prioritize the evidence. 

For this reason, the currently ongoing Razak appeal seeks to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decide whether the state’s wage and hour laws follow this federal standard, or a more practical one. Whatever the outcome, Razak has already opened a rare public window into how gig platforms structure work. 

A Catalyst for Change 

Since Razak was filed, the legal landscape around gig work has shifted dramatically.   

California adopted the worker-friendly ABC test to determine employee status before making separate provisions for ride-hail and delivery drivers through an industry-backed ballot initiative. New Jersey’s Supreme Court embraced the ABC test for wage– and– hour claims, and Pennsylvania’s high court adopted a similar standard for unemployment benefits. Meanwhile, public enforcement efforts by cities and states have returned millions to misclassified workers and taxpayers. 

Related: FAQ About Wage and Hour Law for Rideshare Drivers

Razak helped spark this shift by exposing the true level of control that companies like Uber exercise over their platforms. 

Continuing the Fight for Workers 

The classification debate remains unsettled, and the challenges posed by gig work will only grow as more industries turn to platform-based labor. Meeting this moment will require renewed vigilance from plaintiffs’ attorneys to ensure that gig workers receive the fundamental rights other workers take for granted.  

Today at Pond Lehocky, Jeremy leads the firm’s Employment Litigation Group, representing misclassified workers, whistleblowers, and all employees on the front lines of a changing economy. He also created and teaches Employment Law in the Gig Economy at Rutgers Law School, the first course devoted entirely to these issues. His work underscores a growing demand for fairness in employment and gig work. By challenging powerful corporations and advocating for proper worker classification, he is helping shape a future where all workers receive the rights and protections they deserve.