Key Plaintiff Objects To Deal In Uber Driver Lawsuit

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It looks like a monkey wrench has just been thrown into Uber's $100 million proposed settlement. The first named plaintiff in the case against Uber has hired new lawyers and filed a declaration in court stating that he objects to the proposed settlement. The proposed $100 million doesn't even cover what the plaintiffs say they are owned in tips. :eek:

Uber and smaller rival, Lyft, are attempting to settle lawsuits by drivers who contend they should be classified as employees and therefore entitled to reimbursement for expenses, including gasoline and vehicle maintenance. Drivers currently pay those costs themselves. In a court filing on Monday, plaintiff Douglas O'Connor said the deal "is not in my interest or in the interest of any Uber driver."
 
Guess they want to be compensated more. I am unaware of the conditions of which an Uber or Lyft driver signed on to work for their respective companies but if the contract stated that gas and maintenance are not paid expenses, it's an interesting lawsuit in which I'm surprised that Uber offered this settlement. Perhaps they just wanted it to go away. Just my humble opinion.

Maybe a driver of either company can comment if not under a NDA.
 
Guy had to hire new lawyers. Class actions only seem to be in the Lawyers best interest. Second would be company paying to make a big problem go away and not have to face a lot of little lawsuit. Last are always the plaintiffs.
 
JohnC0817 said:
Guess they want to be compensated more. I am unaware of the conditions of which an Uber or Lyft driver signed on to work for their respective companies but if the contract stated that gas and maintenance are not paid expenses, it's an interesting lawsuit in which I'm surprised that Uber offered this settlement. Perhaps they just wanted it to go away. Just my humble opinion.

Maybe a driver of either company can comment if not under a NDA.
Click to expand...

It's not surprising. Uber wants to avoid at all costs having their workers declared as employees rather than contractors. That opens up WAY more money sinks than just compensating workers for wear and tear and fuel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top