`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`Thomas R. Kayes (Cal. Bar. No. 327020)
`tom@kayes.law
`LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS R. KAYES, LLC
`2045 W Grand Ave, Ste B, PMB 62448
`Chicago, IL 60612
`tel: 708.722.2241
` Attorney for Plaintiff Mesachi
`
`
`
`
`
`United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California
`San Francisco Division
`
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`Case No. 20-cv-7028
` Edmond Mesachi,
` Complaint; Demand for Jury Trial
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
` Postmates Inc.,
` Defendant.
`
`1.
`Postmates Inc. is a delivery company.
`2.
`Merchants do deals with Postmates to make their goods available for
`delivery to consumers.
`3.
`Consumers use Postmates’s smartphone application and website to order
`those goods and pay Postmates to deliver them.
`4.
`Postmates pays delivery drivers to do the deliveries.
`5.
`The company calls its individual delivery drivers “Postmates” and all the
`Postmates together are the company’s “Fleet.”
`6.
`Because Postmates controls the delivery drivers’ work; because the delivery
`drivers’ work is within the usual course of the company’s business; and because the
`COMPLAINT - 1
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`
`delivery drivers are not independent businesses, the delivery drivers are Postmates’s
`employees under state and federal law.
`7.
`They are therefore entitled to minimum wage and other benefits.
`8.
`But Postmates misclassifies its delivery drivers, treating them as
`independent contractors rather than employees.
`9.
`It does not pay minimum wage, overtime, and it does not provide the other
`benefits that employers are required to provide their employees.
`10.
`It is not alone.
`11.
`Postmates is a member of the small tribe of venture-capital fed, smartphone-
`enabled companies known as the gig economy.
`12.
`Starting in the late 2000s, these companies began taking advantage of GPS
`technology in smartphones to sell on-demand transportation and delivery.
`13.
`Each gig economy company, Postmates included, provides consumers with a
`software application for their smartphones.
`14.
`Those applications, called apps, allow the consumers to tap their phones to
`buy the company’s service.
`15.
`Tap on Uber or Lyft’s app, and you’ll summon a ride.
`16.
`Tap on Postmates’s, DoorDash’s, or Instacart’s app, and you can have a
`cheeseburger, bottle of wine, or pack of batteries delivered to your door in minutes.
`17.
`Each of these companies has a fleet of drivers who provide the companies’
`rides or deliveries.
`18.
`Like Postmates, each of these companies steadfastly refuses to obey federal,
`state, and local law, instead choosing to misclassify drivers as independent contractors.
`19.
`The companies misclassify to avoid paying fair wages, to pass the expense of
`owning and operating a fleet of cars to their drivers, to skirt taxes, and to skimp on
`employment benefits.
`20.
`Until April 2018, in California, these companies had the benefit of vague law.
`Back then, both federal law and California law used vague, multi-factor tests to determine
`whether a worker was an employee or independent contractor.
`COMPLAINT - 2
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`Then, on April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court handed down
`21.
`Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (Cal. 2018).
`22.
`The decision replaced California’s vague, existing test with a crisp new one—
`the ABC Test.
`23.
`Under the ABC Test, a worker is an employee of the hiring entity unless the
`employer can prove three things:
`(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection
`with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of
`such work and in fact;
`(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring
`entity's business; and
`(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade,
`occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring
`entity.
`Dynamex, 4 Cal.5th at 916-17.
`24.
`The gig economy companies cannot satisfy any part of this test, but part B is
`the most obvious hurdle.
`25.
`The companies sell rides or deliveries; the workers provide the rides and do
`the deliveries. They therefore work in the usual course of each business.
`26.
`The legal and popular press, latching onto part B, predicted that companies
`like Postmates would reclassify. Those predictions were wrong.
`27.
`And when Postmates and its cohort refused to heed Dynamex, California’s
`legislature took notice.
`28.
`The legislature passed and the governor then signed AB 5, which, effective
`January 1, 2020, codified the ABC Test in the California Labor and Unemployment
`Insurance Codes.
`29.
`In lawsuits aimed at overturning AB 5, gig economy companies argue that the
`law was aimed at them.
`30.
`Despite that, they all, Postmates included, ignore it.
`COMPLAINT - 3
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`So, relying on AB 5, government actors began to file suits challenging
`31.
`misclassification in the gig economy.
`32.
`On February 18, 2020, a judge granted the San Diego City Attorney’s motion
`to preliminary enjoin misclassification by Instacart, which offers a service materially
`identical to Postmates’s.
`33.
`The judge wrote that “it is more likely than not that the People will establish
`at trial that the [delivery drivers] perform a core function of defendant’s business; that they
`are not free from defendant’s control; and that they are not engaged in an independently
`established trade, occupation or business.” People v. Mablebear Inc., Case No. 37-2019-
`48731-CU-MC-CTL, Slip. Op at 3-4 (Feb. 18, 2020), available at
`https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/nr200225a1.pdf.
`34.
`Instacart had complained that enjoining it was unfair surprise, but the judge
`was unsympathetic: “It bears repeating that the Unanimous Supreme Court’s decision [in
`Dynamex] is now nearly 2 years old. While change is hard, defendant cannot legitimately
`claim surprise … .” Id. at 4.
`35.
`A few weeks later, speaking this time of Lyft’s drivers, this Court wrote
`“[t]hat [the ABC] test is obviously met here: Lyft drivers provide services that are squarely
`within the usual course of the company’s business … .” Rogers v. Lyft, Inc., No. 20-cv-01938-
`VC, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2020). The Court continued: “Lyft’s argument to the contrary is
`frivolous.” Id. But arbitration prevented him from providing the private plaintiffs in that
`case their requested relief.
`36. Meanwhile, the city attorneys of Los Angeles and San Francisco, joined by the
`California Attorney General, filed misclassification claims against Uber and Lyft.
`37.
`On August 10, 2020, the judge in that case granted the cities and state’s
`motion for a preliminary injunction. Order on People’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., People v. Uber
`Technologies et al., Case No. CGC-20-584402, Slip. Op. at 1 (San Francisco Super. Ct., Aug.
`10, 2020), available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-
`docs/Order_on_Peoples_Motion.pdf.
`38.
`The opinion does not mince words.
`COMPLAINT - 4
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`The judge wrote that Uber and Lyft “cannot possibly satisfy the ‘B’ prong of
`39.
`[the ABC] test … . … It’s this simple: Defendants’ drivers do not perform work that is
`‘outside the usual course of their businesses.” Id. at 5. Uber and Lyft’s contrary arguments
`“fl[ew] in the face of economic reality and common sense.” Id.
`40.
`The “new” legal standard is now two-and-half-years-old. But despite that and
`the successful private and public efforts to enforce it, the gig economy, including Postmates,
`persists in ignoring it.
`41.
`They all continue to misclassify their workers.
`42.
`And, instead of putting more money toward fair wages and benefits,
`Postmates, along with Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash, have poured more than $100 million into
`Proposition 22, a ballot initiative that would legalize their misclassification by eviscerating
`AB 5. 43.
`Prop. 22 is on the ballot for November 2020.
`44.
`That brings us to the present, and to Edmond Mesachi.
`45. Mesachi has been a Postmate since 2016.
`46.
`He provides the deliveries that are Postmates’s core product.
`47.
`Consistent with its unlawful practice, Postmate misclassifies and underpays
`Mesachi and offers him none of the legally required benefits.
`48. Mesachi therefore brings this suit to claim what he is owed.
`49.
`Plaintiff Edmond Mesachi is an individual living in the Los Angeles area.
`50.
`Defendant Postmates Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
`of business in San Francisco, California.
`51.
`The court has federal-question jurisdiction over this case based on Mesachi’s
`federal Fair Labor Standards Act claim and supplemental jurisdiction over Mesachi’s
`remaining claims because they arise from the same basic facts as the federal claim.
`52.
`Venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Postmates is the
`only defendant and it resides in this judicial district.
`COMPLAINT - 5
`
`Jurisdiction & Venue
`
`Parties
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`Instradistrict Assignment should be to the San Francisco Division because
`53.
`Postmates is based in San Francisco. Allegations
`54.
`Postmates was founded in 2011. Today it employs over 500,000 individual
`delivery workers (most drive, some deliver on foot or by bike). The workers deliver from
`over 600,000 merchants in all 50 states. Uber recently bought the company for $2.65
`billion dollars.
`55.
`Postmates is a delivery service.
`56.
`It’s mission, stated on its website, is this:
`
`Postmates Inc.
`
`
`57. Merchants sign up with Postmates, providing the company with information
`about their goods and prices.
`Consumers sign up via a smartphone app or on Postmates’s website, giving
`58.
`the company a name, address, phone number, and credit card.
`59.
`Once signed up, the consumer can search through merchant offerings on
`Postmates’s website or app, select goods they want delivered, order them, pay, and track
`the goods as they work their way to the customer.
`60.
`Postmates specializes in on-demand delivery. While consumers can schedule
`deliveries for hours or days after they place an order, most deliveries made by Postmates
`are made right away.
`61. Many deliveries are household goods, most often prepared meals from
`restaurants, groceries, and other household items.
`62.
`The on-demand delivery space is incredibly competitive, especially for food.
`COMPLAINT - 6
`
`Postmates Controls its Delivery Drivers
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`Postmates competes directly with Grubhub, DoorDash, UberEats, Instacart,
`63.
`and other companies. Each of these companies offers the same basic service to consumers:
`Use a smartphone app to order something for immediate delivery.
`64.
`Providing excellent delivery service—fast, accurate, and friendly—is key to
`competing successfully.
`65.
`Postmates therefore carefully controls the work of its delivery drivers.
`66.
`Postmates accomplishes the necessary level of control via a smartphone app,
`called the Fleet App, that it created and that it requires its delivery drivers use.
`67.
`The drivers must download, install, and register with the app to be able to
`work. 68.
`And they must log in to the app any time they wish to do work.
`69.
`As soon as a driver logs in, Postmates’s technology logs the driver’s location
`and factors it into how new orders will be assigned, and how existing orders, already
`assigned to one driver, may be re-assigned to another.
`70.
`As soon as a driver logs in, the app may begin offering him or her deliveries.
`71.
`Even before the first delivery offer comes, the app guides drivers to busy
`areas, called “hot spots” and informs them about available pay incentives, which are little
`games—“do 10 deliveries in the next hour” and so on—drivers can sign up for to earn
`bonuses. 72.
`To make sure its deliveries are performed quickly, Postmates programmed
`the Fleet app to only give drivers a few seconds to determine whether to accept or reject an
`offered delivery.
`73. When the app offers a delivery job to a driver, the app only shows the driver
`the number of orders offered, the merchant from which the driver would need to pick-up
`the orders, and the location. Postmates doesn’t show the driver how much he or she would
`earn for completing the delivery. The driver must decide whether to accept the job without
`knowing what it pays.
`74.
`If the driver rejects or simply doesn’t decide in time, then the delivery is
`offered to another nearby driver.
`COMPLAINT - 7
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`If the driver accepts the delivery, then the app suggests an efficient route for
`75.
`the driver to take to get to the merchant.
`76.
`Using GPS technology in the driver’s smartphone, Postmates knows when the
`driver arrives at the merchant.
`77.
`Postmates has programmed the app to guide the driver through picking up
`orders at the merchant.
`78.
`For example, Postmates programmed the app to require drivers to check-in,
`with a separate tap, each item in the order, to ensure that the consumer’s entire order gets
`delivered. 79.
`The app will not give the driver the consumer’s address until all the items
`have been checked in.
`80.
`For many orders, Postmates prepays the merchant.
`81.
`For other orders, Postmates requires drivers to use a debit card, provided by
`the company, to pay for orders.
`82.
`Again, the app guides users through the required process: making the order,
`using the app to take a clear photograph of the receipt, and swiping the debit card. The app
`won’t let the driver move on with the delivery until the exact process is followed.
`83.
`Once the pick-up process is complete, the app shows the driver where to go
`to deliver the order.
`84.
`The app also tells the driver exactly how to make the delivery: whether the
`consumer wants the driver to leave the order on the step, ring the bell, meet someone in
`the lobby, etc.
`85.
`Postmates requires drivers to wait at least 5 minutes for consumers to show
`up and claim their orders. Only once that time has elapsed will the app allow the driver to
`mark an order as undeliverable, if, for example, a consumer who ordered delivery to a
`gated community fails to let the driver pass through the gate.
`86.
`Once the driver completes the delivery in the assigned manner, he or she can
`use the app to notify Postmates that the job is complete. The app will then allow them to
`accept another job.
`COMPLAINT - 8
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`Sometimes Postmates offers drivers what are called “batched” orders. A
`87.
`batched order is simply two or more different consumers’ orders from the same merchant.
`88.
`There are also “chained” orders, which are multiple consumers’ orders from
`multiple merchants.
`89.
`To stay competitive, Postmates uses batched and chained orders to increase
`delivery speeds, placing orders together if the merchants and consumers are near to each
`other. 90.
`Drivers have no discretion as to how to pick up and deliver batched and
`chained orders.
`91.
`The app controls the order in which the driver must go to each merchant for
`pick up, and the order in which the driver must visit each consumer for delivery. The driver
`could not choose a different pick-up or delivery sequence even if he or she wanted to
`because the app only gives the driver the next address one at a time.
`92.
`Sometimes the app will even take orders away from drivers who have
`already accepted them; re-assigning them if traffic or other circumstances make it so that
`another driver is better positioned to make the delivery on time.
`93.
`To maintain high delivery standards and stay competitive, Postmates
`suspends or fires drivers who fail to make deliveries on time, with what counts as “on time”
`decided solely by Postmates.
`94.
`Postmates also suspends or fires drivers whose behavior on the app, even
`indirectly, negatively impacts its ability to deliver quickly. For example, drivers who take,
`but then cancel, deliveries are at risk of suspension or termination.
`95.
`Sometimes consumers cancel deliveries themselves, often after the driver
`has already picked up the items.
`96. When this happens, Postmates decides what to do; not the driver.
`97.
`For some goods, like prepared food, Postmates allows the driver to keep or
`throw out the items and then continue to receive new delivery jobs.
`98.
`But for other goods, like retail products or alcohol, Postmates requires the
`driver to return the items; refusing to allow that driver to take on other work until the
`return is complete.
`COMPLAINT - 9
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`Delivery Drivers Don’t Control Their Work
`
`99. When drivers do deliver alcohol, Postmates requires them to follow a special
`procedure. 100. Postmates has programmed its app to scan various forms of identification to
`validate a consumer’s age.
`101. The app will not let the driver complete the delivery and keep working until
`this process is complete.
`102. Similarly, for some items, Postmates requires the driver to obtain the
`customer’s signature.
`103. Again, this is accomplished via the app; and the app won’t let the driver
`proceed until the signature is collected.
`104.
`In contrast to the company, its drivers control little.
`105. They can choose when to work, but that’s about it.
`106. They have no power to set prices or wages.
`107. They have no ability to develop lasting relationships with merchants or
`consumers and therefore cannot build a business away from Postmates. The company does
`not even give drivers the consumers’ phone numbers, instead only allowing drivers and
`consumers to communicate using a system that anonymizes their numbers. The app
`deletes the consumers address as soon as the order is complete.
`108. Drivers have no meaningful ability to use judgment and skill to make more
`money delivering for Postmates because they do not control the flow of orders, cannot set
`prices, cannot set routes on batched or chained orders, and cannot even see how much an
`order will pay before deciding whether to accept it.
`109. The only choice a Postmate has is binary: work or don’t.
`110. Postmates is and has always been in the delivery business.
`111. Consumers pay it to deliver goods.
`112.
`It’s marketing and other public facing materials are consistent with this
`business reality.
`113. Here is a sampling of delivery-themed slogans from Postmates’s website:
`COMPLAINT - 10
`
`Postmates is in the Delivery Business; Except when it Gets Sued
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 11
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`114. These statements make clear what Postmates is selling: delivery.
`115. But Postmates will never admit this in litigation.
`116. To do so would admit that it is misclassifying its drivers.
`117. Under part B of the ABC Test, a worker is an employee unless the worker’s
`job is outside the usual course of the company’s business.
`118.
`If Postmates were to admit that it was a delivery company, then it could not
`possibly argue that the delivery drivers were acting outside the usual course of its business.
`119. So, in misclassification litigation, Postmates abandons its marketing
`messaging for a different approach, calling itself a technology company or platform.
`120. But this argument mistakenly focuses on how Postmates works instead of
`what the company does.
`COMPLAINT - 12
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`
`Postmates’s Litigation-Driven Fleet Agreement
`
`Postmates’s Delivery Drivers Are Not Independently Established Businesses
`
`121. Postmates uses sophisticated software to facilitate deliveries. But, in the end,
`it is selling deliveries. That’s its business.
`122. Part C of the ABC Test asks, simply put, whether the worker in question looks
`more like an independent businessperson or an employee. E.g., Garcia v. Border Transp.
`Grp., LLC, 28 Cal.App.5th 558, 570 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018).
`123.
`“This factor can be proven with evidence that the worker has ‘take[n] the
`usual steps to establish and promote his or her independent business—for example,
`through incorporation, licensure, advertisements, routine offerings to provide the services
`of the independent business to the public or to a number of potential customers, and the
`like.’” Id. (quoting Dynamex, 4 Cal.5th at 962).
`124. Postmates’s delivery drivers—its Postmates—are overwhelmingly individual
`workers who don’t incorporate, advertise, obtain business licenses, or offer their services
`to the general public. They just work for Postmates.
`125. To work for Postmates, a delivery driver must sign its Fleet Agreement.
`126. Most do so by swiping through it on a smartphone app. Few read it.
`127. Postmates wrote the agreement to give Postmates arguments for
`misclassification litigation.
`128. The agreement states that drivers have the “sole right to control the manner
`and means by which [they] perform deliveries,” which, of course, is not true. A driver
`cannot refuse to follow the app’s many instructions, described above.
`129. The agreement also states that drivers may hire subcontractors to help them
`perform deliveries, but only if the subcontractor “accepts the Terms of this Agreement and
`separately completes the process to receive Delivery Opportunities.”
`130.
`In other words, a driver may only hire helpers who, by dint of having signed
`up and accepted the Fleet Agreement, can do delivers on their own.
`131. This provision is therefore ridiculous. No rational person who could make
`their own deliveries and keep the whole wage, would choose to do the same work but split
`that wage.
`COMPLAINT - 13
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 14 of 20
`
`
`
`132. And that’s not all. Postmates requires all drivers to submit photographs of
`their faces and information about their cars. Drivers cannot work until they do so. This is
`because Postmates likes to inform consumers who is going to be delivering their order.
`Actually allowing drivers to use subcontractors would prevent Postmates from doing this,
`so on its website for drivers (but not its contract), Postmates tells them that, even if they
`use a helper, they still have to pick up and drop off the orders themselves:
`
`Edmond Mesachi
`
`
`In other words, you can have help, but your help can’t help you.
`133.
`134. Postmates put this subcontractor language into its contract for a reason. Not
`to allow subcontractors, but to mislead judges and factfinders in misclassification litigation.
`135. Since 2016 when he started working for Postmates, Edmond Mesachi has
`made thousands of deliveries for the company, mostly in and around Los Angeles.
`136. Mesachi has no LLC or other business entity for his work for Postmates.
`137. Mesachi does not advertise, market, have business cards, or in any way hold
`himself out as a delivery driver to the general public.
`138. Mesachi has never hired or used employees or subcontractors to perform
`deliveries for Postmates.
`139. Mesachi frequently worked more than 40 hours in a week.
`140. Mesachi frequently worked more than 8 hours in a day.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 14
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 15 of 20
`
`
`
`Year
`
`Amount
`
`141. According to the 1099s issued by Postmates, Mesachi earned these amounts
`in each year:
`2016
`$11,122.30
`2017
`$17,943.85
`2018
`$30,937.38
`2019
`$23,276.26
`Total (through Dec. 31, 2019)
`$83,279.79
`142. A large portion of these amounts came from tips, which do not count toward
`Postmates’s minimum wage and overtime obligations. Cal. Labor Code § 351; Industrial
`Welfare Com. v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.3d 690, 730 (Cal. 1980) (“[T]he enactment would
`ensure that tips received by an employee would not reduce an employer's minimum wage
`obligation, either directly or indirectly.”)).
`143. Postmates has not reported to Mesachi how many miles he drove making
`deliveries and it did not require him to track his mileage himself. Mesachi therefore does
`not know how many miles he drove for Postmates.
`144. Postmates does not require Mesachi to record his actual work time and does
`not make that information available to Mesachi.
`145. Mesachi therefore cannot know for certain, without discovery, how much
`Postmates owes him.
`146. But the data he has, extrapolated to his years of service, is enough to
`plausibly suggest that Postmates has violated his rights and underpaid him by tens of
`thousands of dollars.
`147. The week of March 9, 2020 provides an example.
`148. That week, Mesachi made 43 deliveries, working six out of seven days.
`149. For that week, Postmates paid Mesachi $250.17.
`150. The data Postmates makes available to Mesachi does not allow him to
`determine how many hours he worked that week. But by using the dates and times of each
`delivery Mesachi can estimate when each day’s work ended and began. Using the time of
`COMPLAINT - 15
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 16 of 20
`
`
`
`the first and last deliveries of each day’s work as the beginning and end of each day’s shift,
`Mesachi estimates he worked 27.43 hours that week.
`151. Thus, Postmates paid Mesachi roughly $9.12 per hour that week.
`152. The law requires Postmates to pay more. State law requires a minimum wage
`of $13 dollars per hour. And the Los Angeles Municipal Code requires Postmates to pay a
`minimum wage of $14.25.
`153. The amount Postmates owes Mesachi in back wages, just for that week, is
`about $140:
`Minimum Wage
`$14.25
`
`Minimum Wage Hours
`27.43
`
`Minimum Wage Pay Required
`$390.88
`
`
`
`
`Amount Paid
`$250.17
`
`
`
`
`Underpayment (Los Angeles Municipal Law)
`
`$140.71
`
`154. But even this understates how much Postmates owes Mesachi.
`155. This is because the law does not allow employers to shift their operating
`expenses onto their employees.
`156. Mesachi drives to make his deliveries for Postmates, and so Postmates is
`obligated to reimburse him for the expenses of operating his car.
`157. The IRS estimates those expenses at 57.5 cents per mile.
`158. Assuming Mesachi drove 5 miles per hour that day, Postmates underpaid
`Mesachi by an additional $78.86.
`159. That drives his hourly rate down to $6.25.
`160.
`In sum, Postmates underpaid Mesachi by more than $200 for that one week.
`161. And Mesachi has worked for Postmates for four years.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 16
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 17 of 20
`
`
`
`Claims for Relief
`Claim 1
`Failure to Pay Minimum Wage under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
`
`
`Claim 2
`Failure to Pay Overtime under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
`
`
`162. All other allegations are reincorporated here.
`163. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay employees a
`minimum wage for each hour worked.
`164. Postmates is Mesachi’s employer under the Act.
`165. Postmates failed to pay Mesachi the required minimum wage for all hours
`worked. 166. Mesachi is therefore entitled to unpaid, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees
`and costs, and an injunction requiring Postmates to comply with the Act.
`167. All other allegations are reincorporated here.
`168. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay employees a
`premium, overtime wage for each hour worked over 40 in a week.
`169. Postmates is Mesachi’s employer under the Act.
`170. Postmates failed to pay Mesachi the required wage for hours worked over 40
`in a week. 171. Mesachi is therefore entitled to unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys’
`fees and costs, and an injunction requiring Postmates to comply with the Act.
`172. All other allegations are reincorporated here.
`173. California law requires employers to pay employees a minimum wage for each
`hour worked.
`174. Postmates is Mesachi’s employer under California law.
`175. Postmates failed to pay Mesachi the required minimum wage for all hours
`worked.
`COMPLAINT - 17
`
`Claim 3
`Failure to Pay Minimum Wage under California State Law
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Claim 4
`Failure to Pay Overtime under California State Law
`
`
`Claim 5
`Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses under California Labor Code § 2802
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 18 of 20
`
`
`
`176. Mesachi is therefore entitled to unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys’
`fees and costs, and an injunction requiring Postmates to comply with the law.
`177. All other allegations are reincorporated here.
`178. California state law requires employers to pay employees a premium,
`overtime wage for each hour worked over 40 in a week or 8 in day.
`179. Postmates is Mesachi’s employer under California law.
`180. Postmates failed to pay Mesachi the required premium wage.
`181. Mesachi is therefore entitled to unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys’
`fees and costs, and an injunction requiring Postmates to comply with the law.
`182. All other allegations are reincorporated here.
`183. California Labor Code § 2802 requires employers to pay for business expenses
`incurred by employees. This includes typical driving expenses incurred by delivery drivers.
`184. Postmates is Mesachi’s employer under California law.
`185. Postmates failed to pay Mesachi’s business expenses.
`186. Mesachi is therefore entitled to reimbursement of business expenses,
`attorneys’ fees and costs, and an injunction requiring Postmates to comply with the law.
`187. All other allegations are reincorporated here.
`188. California Labor Code § 226 requires employers to provide their employees
`with wage statements that provide enough information to allow the employee to calculate
`their wage, among other things.
`189. Postmates is Mesachi’s employer under California law.
`190. Postmates failed to provide to Mesachi the required wage statement.
`191. Mesachi is therefore entitled to a civil penalty, attorneys’ fees and costs, and
`an injunction requiring Postmates to comply with the law.
`COMPLAINT - 18
`
`Claim 6
`Failure to Provide Informative Wage Statement under California Labor Code § 226
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07028 Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 19 of 20
`
`
`
`Claim 7
`California Business & Professions Code § 17200
`
`
`Claim 8
`Failure to Pay Minimum Wage under the Los Angeles Municipal Code
`
`
`192. All other allegations are reincorporated here.
`193. California Business & Professions Code § 17200 prohibits employers from
`subjecting employees to unlawful or unfair business practices.
`194. Postmates is Mesachi’s employer under California law.
`195. Postmates subjected Mesachi to unlawful business practices by violating the
`laws in ways described in the other claims for relief.
`196. These unlawful practices cost Me