More drivers are eligible to take part in a class action lawsuit against Uber where drivers claim they were wrongly classified as independent contractors instead of employees.

Judge Edward Chen ruled Wednesday that drivers who signed contracts with Uber that had clauses calling for arbitration on an individual basis only could still take part in the class action. The federal judge ruled an individual arbitration clause in the Uber contract was not enforceable because the contract language ran afoul of the California Private Attorney General Act.

An earlier decision by Chen had allowed only drivers who had not signed agreements with individual arbitration clauses — or who had opted out of such clauses. The earlier ruling would have reduced the number of drivers in the class to fewer than 15,000 from the initial projections of 160,000, according to an Uber blog post.

Wednesday’s ruling would make more drivers eligible to take part in the class action suit.

Plaintiff’s Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan said in a message to the Staffing Industry Daily News the exact number of drivers that will be added as a result of Wednesday’s new ruling is unknown, but the number will be in the thousands.

Liss-Riordan said the move is a significant development in the case which is set to go to trial in June.

Uber said in a statement it intends to appeal the decision.

“Nearly 90% of drivers say the main reason they use Uber is because they love being their own boss,” according to a statement by an Uber spokesperson to the Staffing Industry Daily News. “Drivers use Uber on their own terms; they control their use of the app along with where and when they drive. As employees, drivers would lose the personal flexibility they value most — they would have set shifts, earn a fixed hourly wage, and be unable to use other ridesharing apps. We will appeal the district court’s decision immediately.”

Liss-Riordan said the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal rejected an effort by Uber to file an immediate appeal of the last class certification order issued in September.

However, drivers who worked for third-party entities or did so as a corporation are still not allowed to take part, per the judge’s decision. This excludes one of the three named plaintiffs in the case, Thomas Colopy. This also excludes people such as Barbara Berwick, who sought reimbursements from the California Labor Commissioner.

Uber also underscored that ability to get a class certified is not an indication that the plaintiffs will ultimately win. The company also reported that based on the facts and the law, the majority of people who drive are independent contractors, and making drivers employees would result in loss of flexibility, assigned shifts, lower earnings and an inability to drive with other ridesharing platforms.

The case is Douglas O’Connor et al v. Uber Technologies Inc.