Skip page header and navigation

Judge dismisses UberBlack driver misclassification lawsuit

CWS 3.0 - Contingent Workforce Strategies

Judge dismisses UberBlack driver misclassification lawsuit

Sharon Thomas
| August 6, 2024
building face with Uber signage
Photo credit: ID 91821795 © Lindaparton | Dreamstime.com

Main article

A federal judge in Philadelphia on July 31 dismissed a long-running lawsuit alleging Uber Technologies misclassified drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, saying a third trial would be futile after two separate juries deadlocked, Reuters reported. 

The move comes after jurors in two separate six-day trials in March and June could not agree on whether Uber Technologies exerted enough control over UberBlack drivers in Philadelphia to be considered their employer under federal wage law. 

UberBlack provides luxury and limousine-type rides for users through the standard Uber app. 

“No single litigant has the right to continuously monopolize a district court’s docket in this manner,” wrote Baylson, an appointee of Republican former President George W. Bush. 

Razak v. Uber Technologies, which was first filed in 2016, has bounced between the courts. Judge Michael Baylson of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania first ruled in favor of Uber in 2018, determining that the ride-hailing company did not exert enough control over the drivers to necessitate employee classification, among other factors.  

The case became the first seen at the appeals court level, when the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal reversed Baylor’s decision in 2020. The court said at the time while UberBlack drivers set their own schedules and have some ability to select passengers, a judge or jury must determine if Uber still maintains the right to control several aspects of their work and their opportunities for profit.  

Uber appealed the reversal to the US Supreme Court, which in May 2021 declined to hear the case.  

Baylson said the plaintiffs had not shown that they could convince a third jury to rule in their favor, Reuters reported, and granting them another trial would waste the court’s resources. “No single litigant has the right to continuously monopolize a district court’s docket in this manner,” Baylson wrote in his ruling. 

Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents the plaintiffs and has litigated many similar cases around the country, said she planned to appeal the decision, Reuters reported