First of its Kind Lawsuit Filed Today Alleges Uber’s Failure to Provide an Appeals Process for Terminated Drivers Violates Prop 22

Lawsuit seeks determination that because of Uber’s failure to comply with Proposition 22, drivers may seek relief under the California Labor Code, based upon their misclassification as independent contractors. 

San Francisco, CA: Today, Rideshare Drivers United and attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan announced a new lawsuit against Uber alleging that the company is in violation of the Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act, known as Prop 22. While Prop 22 passage was supported with $52 million from Uber, the company is failing to provide some of the few benefits provided by the law, including the requirement that companies provide an appeals process for terminated drivers. The lawsuit was filed in the County of San Francisco Superior Court. 

Prop 22 provides that “app-based drivers” are independent contractors if certain conditions are met. One of Prop 22’s protections is that drivers would have an appeals process for challenging their terminations. Given that Uber has not satisfied the requirements of Proposition 22, including its failure to provide a bona fide appeals process for terminated drivers, Uber cannot maintain its contention that its drivers are independent contractors under California law. 

The plaintiff, Rideshare Drivers United (www.drivers-united.org), has more than 20,000 members who work as “app-based drivers” in California, many of whom work for Uber. Under Prop 22, these drivers are afforded certain benefits, including the right to an appeals process if they are terminated. However, Uber has not provided any bona fide appeals process for drivers to challenge their terminations (or “deactivations”, as Uber calls them), and no appeals process that comports with any standards of due process. 

As a result of Uber’s failure to comply with this provision of Prop 22, many Uber drivers have been terminated for unjustifiable reasons. Drivers have had no real recourse to challenge their terminations. These terminations have caused severe financial and emotional harm to drivers. 

“When I was deactivated, I had a 4.96 rating on over 18,000 rides and have been driving on the platform for more than eight years without incident,” said Devins Baker, a San Francisco driver and member of RDU. “I was shocked that the company said I was driving unsafely, with no further explanation. When I tried to appeal, they would not engage with me, by internet, phone, or in person. As a professional, this was devastating and harmed me financially.”

“Since Prop 22 passed, we’ve heard from hundreds of drivers across California about being deactivated and then essentially ignored by Uber,” said Jason Munderloh, Bay Area Chapter Chair of the statewide organization, Rideshare Drivers United. “Uber and the other companies spent over $200 million to buy themselves a law that works for them, not for drivers. And now they’re not even following the basic protections that are in it, like a real appeals process for deactivations. Drivers are left in limbo for weeks, not knowing if they’ll ever get their jobs back. That’s not acceptable, and it’s time to hold Uber accountable.” 

In addition to failing to institute an appeals process, the lawsuit alleges that Uber is violating Prop 22 in a number of ways, including: 

• Uber terminates drivers based on grounds not specified in its “Platform Access Agreement.” ● Uber prohibits drivers from rejecting ride and delivery requests based on the customer’s geographical location or the presence of a service animal. 
• Uber fails to provide drivers with enough information to determine readily whether their earnings satisfy requirements that they receive 120 percent of minimum wage for “engaged time”, the required mileage expense reimbursement, all gratuities, and other benefits intended for them. 

“Prop 22 was devastating to drivers, but it also promised certain benefits, like an appeals process following deactivation,” said Shannon Liss-Riordan, attorney for Rideshare Drivers United. “Unfortunately, Uber is choosing to take advantage of the immense corporate benefits offered by Prop 22 while ignoring the minimal benefits and protections it offers to drivers. The law provides that app-based drivers are independent contractors if certain conditions are met. Given that Uber has not satisfied the requirements of Proposition 22, including its failure to provide a bona fide appeals process for terminated drivers, Uber cannot maintain its contention that its drivers are independent contractors under California law.” 

In addition to challenging Uber’s reliance on Prop 22 through this lawsuit, Lichten & Liss-Riordan is continuing its representation of drivers through individual arbitration and will be challenging unfair deactivations and arguing that Prop 22 cannot be a defense for Uber to Labor Code claims.