In her latest article for The Legal Intelligencer, āEmployee or Nonemployee? That Is the Question in Uber Cases,ā Pond Lehocky Attorney Susan Nanes discusses recent litigation surrounding Uber driversā employment status, and the implications this has for workersā compensation.
āThereās no clichĆ© better than a Shakespeare clichĆ©, and no Shakespeare clichĆ© more clichĆ© than referencing Hamlet,ā Susan begins. āDuly noted and ignored. Letās turn to Uber, the Prince of 555 Market St. in San Francisco.ā
Susanās article, which was also featured in the November Pennsylvania Association of Justice Member News Brief, explores the impact of granting Uber drivers full employee status. After describing the complex array of litigation that Uber is currently facingāfrom cases concerning intellectual property, to invasion of customersā privacy, securities fraud, antitrust, regulatory issues, race and gender discrimination, sexual harassment and, of course, employment lawāshe focuses on Razak vs. Uber as a case that could mark a shift in the way ride-share companies operate going forward.
While taxicab drivers have never received the protections afforded those with employee status, ride-share companies fall somewhat outside the scope of the traditional taxicab companies. Razak affords the opportunity for drivers to question both their status and exactly what legal protections theyāre entitled to. In the future, ride-share companies could be considered traditional employers ā but that juryās still out.
āFor certain, litigation here and around the country on ride-share driversā employment status is far from over,ā Susan writes. āThe stakes are high and Uber has shown how fiercely it will fight to defend its wealth and position. Having eaten like wolves, they will fight like devils.ā
Click here to read the full article.