throbber
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 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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket