Read here about an important lawsuit brought by Uber drivers to recover the tips they should have received and reimbursement for expenses

uber taxi & limo drivers

Uber drivers have filed a class action lawsuit claiming they have been misclassified as independent contractors and are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses that Uber should have to pay, like for gas and vehicle maintenance. The lawsuit also challenges Uber’s practice of telling passengers that the gratuity is included and not to tip the drivers, even though you are not getting a tip!!


Earlier this year, we reached a settlement with Uber under which it would pay up to $100 million and make some significant changes in its policies.  However, in August, the court declined to approve the settlement. The court’s concern was largely with the settlement’s reduction in the massive potential penalties that could be recovered (mostly for the State of California) under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA).  Click here to read the court’s decision.

In light of this development,  we will keep you posted on what happens next.  It is possible that a new agreement could be reached that satisfies the court’s concerns regarding the PAGA claims.  But if not, the case will likely go to trial for a much smaller class.

In a related case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed the judge in our case on his ruling that Uber’s arbitration clause is not enforceable.  While we still have a separate appeal pending, this development may mean that the trial might only include those drivers who opted out of the arbitration clause.  

So if you are an Uber driver in California or Massachusetts who did not opt out of the arbitration clause, but you want to be sure to be included in our case, you should contact us, if you have not already, to sign up to bring an arbitration claim.  Email us at uberlawsuit@llrlaw.com to obtain a form to sign up with us if you want to be included.



Uber will pay $100 million to settle independent contractor misclassification claims 

Click here (part 1, part 2, part 3) to listen to an interview with Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan (conducted by KQED) discussing the settlement and responding to objections that have been filed. Click here to read a transcript of the interview.

Click here to read our response to the objections that have been filed with the court.

Click here to see a video of Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan explaining the settlement and answering some of the most frequently asked questions we are getting. (You will need to sign in to view the video.)


The case was set to begin trial on June 20, 2016.  However, on April 5, 2016, the Ninth Circuit granted Uber’s request for an immediate appeal of the trial court’s ruling that had held Uber’s arbitration clause to be unenforceable and certified the case as a class action covering most drivers in California.  Uber had moved to postpone the trial so that the Ninth Circuit could hear this appeal first; its request was pending when we reached the settlement.

We won a major victory on March 11, 2015, when the judge overseeing the case, Judge Edward M. Chen, of the federal district court in San Francisco, denied Uber’s motion for summary judgment!  In his decision, the judge agreed with many of our arguments about why Uber drivers may be properly classified as employees.  Under the court’s order, the case would go to trial before a jury.  See the news stories below for reports on the ruling.

We won another important victory on December 9, 2015, when the court issued its final order certifying the case as a class action.  Under this decision, the case will now include all drivers who have contracted with Uber directly and in their own name (not through intermediate companies) in California since 2009.  This decision was a major victory because, in an earlier class certification order, the court had excluded from the case all drivers who have driven for Uber since June 2014 (unless they had opted out of Uber’s arbitration clause).  

However, Uber has appealed this ruling striking the arbitration clause.  In the event that drivers will need to file individual arbitrations, we are keeping a list of drivers who are interested in bringing claims individually.  If you want to be on our list, please contact us for a form. 

Importantly, the court excluded from the class all drivers who have driven for Uber using a corporate name, or through an intermediate company (like a limousine company).  We filed a new case on behalf of drivers who drove through limo companies or used corporate names with Uber.

We originally filed this case on behalf of Uber drivers across the country.  In an early ruling, the judge agreed with us that the case could proceed on behalf of drivers nationwide.  In a later ruling, however, the judge changed his mind and limited the case to drivers in California.  

Last year, the California Labor Commissioner ruled that an Uber driver was indeed an employee, not an independent contractor, and ordered Uber to reimburse the driver for her expenses.  However, Uber has appealed the decision, which will be reviewed de novo in court, and so the driver who won the case has not yet received reimbursement and will have to await the outcome of court proceedings.  

In addition to the decision by the California Labor Commissioner, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board has ruled that an Uber driver is an employees eligible to obtain unemployment benefits. Similarly, the Bureau of Labor and Industries of the State of Oregon has recently issued an Advisory Opinion that Uber drivers are employees.

Uber has been arguing that drivers are independent contractors, and not employees, because they can set their own hours, and Uber makes much of the fact that drivers like setting their own schedules.  We don’t disagree that drivers like to be able to work whenever they want!  The fact that drivers set their own schedules does not make them independent contractors.  We are not challenging Uber's system of providing flexibility for its drivers!  We believe that, as Uber operates now, drivers are employees under California law.  So if we win this case, there is no reason drivers should lose their flexibility.  The judge has agreed that nothing about this case is challenging the drivers being able to set their own hours.  Our argument is simply that, under the law, when drivers are working for Uber, they are Uber's employees and must receive the wage protections that employees receive. 

If you have any questions, please call (855) 590-2600, or email us at uberlawsuit@llrlaw.com.

Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan and her firm have represented thousands of tipped employees, and employees who have been misclassified as independent contractors, all around the country.  See her firm’s website for more information: www.llrlaw.com.

Click here to read a copy of the lawsuit complaint.

Click here to read the court’s summary judgment order of March 11, 2015.

Click here to read the court’s class certification order of September 2, 2015.

Click here to read a transcript of the summary judgment hearing held on January 30, 2015. 

Click here to read a transcript of the class certification hearing held on August 6, 2015. 

Click here to read the Ninth Circuit's order of April 5, 2016, granting Uber's request for a Rule 23(f) appeal of the trial court's order which held Uber's arbitration clause to be unenforceable and certifying the case as a class action.

uber taxi & limo drivers

In order to join our contact list of drivers interested in the case who want to receive updates, please email us at uberlawsuit@llrlaw.com and tell us your name, email address, and location where you have driven for Uber.

The attorneys representing the drivers are:

Shannon Liss-Riordan
Adelaide Pagano
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (855) 590-2600

Uber cannot legally retaliate against you for cooperating with the lawsuit.


News Articles:

In stinging decision for Uber drivers, appeals court says they must go to arbitration
LA Times | September 2016

U.S. judge rejects Uber's driver expenses settlement
Reuters | August 2016

Uber’s Worst Nightmare
San Francisco Magazine | May 2016

Following $100 Million Settlement, Tipping Uber Drivers is Now on the Menu
Newsweek | April 2016

Uber Agrees to Pay $100 Million to Drivers in Historic Class Action Settlement
Mother Jones | April 2016

Meet the attorney suing Uber, Lyft, GrubHub and a dozen California tech firms
LA Times | January 2016

Uber's Least Favorite Lawyer Strikes Again
The Recorder | January 2016

Uber sued by drivers excluded from class-action lawsuit
LA Times | January 2016

Year in Preview: What the Uber Lawsuit Means for Workers in the Sharing Economy
SF Weekly | December 2015

Meet Sledgehammer Shannon, the Lawyer Who Is Uber’s Worst Nightmare
Mother Jones | December 2015

That Little Lawsuit Against Uber Just Got Bigger
Vice News | December 2015

The biggest legal threat to Uber’s business just got a whole lot bigger
Quartz | December 2015

Uber Drivers Suit Granted Class-Action Status
The Wall Street Journal | September 2015

A Federal Judge Just Shredded Uber's Arguments Against a Major Class-Action Lawsuit
Slate | September 2015

California Court Gets One Step Closer to Deciding Uber's Fate
Time | August 2015

California labor regulators blast a big hole in Uber's 'sharing economy' dodge
Los Angeles Times | June 2015

Uber driver was employee, not contractor, California commission says
The Wall Street Journal | June 2015

Case against Uber seeks to reclassify drivers as employees, not contractors (Audio Interview)
SiriusXM News | May 2015

How one woman could destroy Uber's business model - and take the entire on demand economy down with it
New York Magazine | April 2015

What strippers can teach Uber
Medium | April 2015

Uber, Lyft cases could help clarify drivers' legal status
Wall Street Journal | March 2015

Legal battle over employment rights for on-demand services like uber (Audio Interview)
WBUR | April 2015

Uber, Lyft lawsuits could spell trouble for the on-demand economy
Time | March 2015

The lawsuits that could change Lyft and Uber forever (Video)
Bloomberg News | March 2015

What’s at stake if Uber and Lyft’s labor models go to trial
The Wall Street Journal | March 2015

Juries to decide landmark cases against Uber and Lyft
Forbes | March 2015

The hidden costs of being an Uber driver
Washington Post | February 2015

Some Uber, Lyft drivers want employee status (Video)
CNBC | February 2015

Attorney suing Uber, Lyft in independent contractor case won similar fights for FedEx drivers, strippers (Video)
San Francisco Business Times | February 2015

Judges skeptical of Uber-Lyft claims in labor cases
The Wall Street Journal | February 2015

Before Uber revolutionizes labor, it's going to have to explain these embarrassing emails
The Verge | January 2015

Internal Uber e-mails reflect company's brash reputation
SF Gate | January 2015

Suits seek to force Lyft and Uber to treat drivers as employees
Buzzfeed | January 2015

The inconvenient truth about ride-sharing
Boston Globe | December 2014

Video: Uber anger: lawsuit claims drivers treated unfairly
WGBH | November 2014

Audio: Shannon Liss-Riordan - Unfair treatment of Uber Drivers
WRKO | July 2014

New lawsuit claims Uber exploits drivers
Boston Globe | June 2014

Judge to Uber: Let drivers join class-action lawsuit
SF Gate | June 2014

This Boston lawyer could be Uber's nemesis as it eyes expansion
Xconomy | May 2014

Judge orders Uber to change ADR clause
The Recorder | May 2014

Drivers accuse car app Uber of dictating terms, skimming tips
Aljazeera America | April 2014

Judge greenlights class-action lawsuit against Uber, drivers say they're being stiffed
SF Weekly | December 2013

Uber drivers' suit over tips clears hurdle
San Francisco Chronicle | December 2013

Cabbies duped by Uber given second chance
Courthouse News Service | December 2013

Uber's Other Legal Mess: Drivers Sue Over Missing Tips
Businessweek | August 2013

Lawsuit Alleges Uber Unfairly Withholds Tips From Drivers
SF Bay Guardian | August 2013

Uber Sued Again Over Tip-Skimming Claims, Case Could Go National
Xconomy | August 2013