`
`
`
`SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN (SBN 310719)
`(sliss@llrlaw.com)
`ANNE KRAMER (SBN 315131)
`LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
`729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
`Boston, MA 02116
`Telephone:
`(617) 994-5800
`Facsimile:
`(617) 994-5801
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Kent Hassell,
`on his own behalf and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`KENT HASSELL, on his own behalf and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a UBER
`EATS,
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:20-cv-04062-PJH
`
`FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`1. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE FOR
`BUSINESS EXPENSES (CAL. LAB.
`CODE § 2802, WAGE ORDER 9-2001)
`2. MINIMUM WAGE (CAL. LAB. CODE
`§§ 1197, 1194, 1182.12, 1194.2, 1197.1,
`1199, WAGE ORDER 9-2001)
`3. OVERTIME (CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 1194,
`1198, 510, AND 554, WAGE ORDER 9-
`2001)
`4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ACCURATE
`ITEMIZED PAY STATEMENTS (CAL.
`LAB. CODE §§ 226(A) AND WAGE
`ORDER 9-2001)
`5. UNLAWFUL AND/OR UNFAIR
`BUSINESS PRACTICES CAL. LAB.
`BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200-17208)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`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 4:20-cv-04062-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This case is brought by Kent Hassell, who has worked as an Uber Eats driver in
`
`California. Uber Eats, a division of Uber Technologies, Inc., provides on-demand food delivery
`
`services. Uber Eats is based in San Francisco, California, and it does business across the United
`
`States and extensively throughout California.
`
`2.
`
`As described further below, Uber Eats has misclassified its delivery drivers as
`
`independent contractors (just as Uber Technologies, Inc. has misclassified its rideshare drivers).
`
`Uber Eats has thereby deprived its drivers, including Plaintiff Kent Hassell, of protections they
`
`are entitled to under the California Labor Code. Based on the delivery drivers’ misclassification
`
`as independent contractors, Uber Eats has unlawfully required the drivers, including Plaintiff
`
`Hassell, to pay business expenses (including, but not limited to, the cost of maintaining their
`
`vehicles, gas, insurance, phone and data expenses, and other costs) in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
`
`§ 2802. Uber Eats has also failed to guarantee and pay its drivers minimum wage for all hours
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`worked, and it has failed to pay overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of eight hours per
`
`16
`
`day or forty hours per week in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1182.12., 1194.2, 1194, 1197,
`
`1197.1, 1198, 1199, 510, and 554. Uber Eats has also failed to provide proper itemized wage
`
`statements that include all of the requisite information, including hours worked and hourly wages
`
`that are accessible outside the Uber Eats Application in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a).
`
`Uber Eats has also failed to provide sick leave as required by California law in violation of Cal.
`
`Lab. Code § 246. Uber Eats’ continued misclassification of its delivery drivers as independent
`
`contractors is willful misclassification in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226.8. Plaintiff Hassell
`
`also brings a claim for unfair business practices under California law. See Bus. & Prof. Code §§
`
`17200, et seq.1
`
`
`1
`Notably, a UCL claim has a statute of limitations of four years. In contrast, claims
`brought under the California Labor Code have a statute of limitations of three years, and a
`PAGA claim has only a one year statute of limitations. Thus, absent the ability to maintain a
`2
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04062-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/04/21 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Indeed, in the fall of 2019, the California legislature passed a statute known as
`
`Assembly Bill 5 (or “A.B. 5”), which codified the 2018 California Supreme Court decision,
`
`Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, 416 P.3d1, reh’g denied
`
`(June 20, 2018), under which an alleged employer cannot justify classifying workers as
`
`independent contractors who perform services within its usual course of business. See Cal. Lab.
`
`Code § 2750.3. It has been widely recognized by the California legislature, including the bill’s
`
`author, that the purpose and intent of this statute was to ensure that companies, including
`
`specifically Uber, stop misclassifying their workers as independent contractors. Although Uber
`
`attempted to obtain a “carve-out” from this statute when it was enacted, it did not obtain such an
`
`exemption, and the legislature passed the statute so that it would include Uber Eats drivers.
`
`Nevertheless, Uber Eats has defied this statute and continued to classify its delivery drivers as
`
`
`UCL claim, Plaintiff Hassell would lose the ability to recover for at least one year of damages on
`behalf of the putative class.
`In addition, Plaintiff Hassell notes that absent his UCL claim as it pertains to violations of
`Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.8 and 246, he would have no adequate legal remedy because none of his
`other legal claims would afford him damages or restitution to redress Uber Eats’ willful
`misclassification of him as an independent contractor or its failure to provide him paid sick time.
`The fact that Plaintiff could have chosen to redress these harms through claims under PAGA or
`Cal. Lab. Code § 248.5 is not of consequence, because, at this stage, he need only show that he
`lacks an adequate remedy under any of the other legal claims that he did choose to bring. See In
`re JUUL Labs, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litig., --- F.Supp.3d ---,
`2020 WL 6271173, at *55 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2020) (denying defendant’s motion to dismiss
`UCL claim based on unfair conduct for restitution and explaining that, at this preliminary stage,
`a plaintiff’s obligation to allege that he lacks an adequate remedy at law is low where “the
`allegations regarding unfair conduct are not otherwise coextensive with plaintiffs’ legal claims”).
`Even so, a PAGA claim would not provide Plaintiff an adequate remedy at law for to redress
`Uber Eats’ willful misclassification of him because a PAGA claim is brought in the shoes of the
`state, whereas the UCL claim allows Plaintiff Hassell to address Uber’s unfair conduct in his
`own right, and PAGA allows only for the recovery of civil penalties rather than actual money
`damages.
`
`
`3
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`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 4:20-cv-04062-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/04/21 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`independent contractors – in violation of the clear intent of the California legislature. This
`
`ongoing defiance of the law constitutes willful violation of California law. 2
`
`4.
`
`Uber Eats has harmed delivery drivers like Kent Hassell by these violations, as
`
`delivery drivers have struggled to support themselves without the employment protections
`
`mandated by the State of California.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. He seeks recovery of damages for himself and the class.
`
`II.
`
`PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Kent Hassell is an adult resident of Cypress, California, where he has
`
`worked as an Uber Eats driver since January 2020. Plaintiff opted out of Uber’s arbitration
`
`clause.
`
`7.
`
`The above-named plaintiff has brought this action on his own behalf and behalf of
`
`all others similarly situated, namely all other individuals who have worked as Uber Eats delivery
`
`15
`
`drivers in California.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Uber Eats (“Uber Eats”) is a corporation
`
`headquartered in San Francisco, California.
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`9.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted here pursuant to the
`
`Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), since Defendant is a California citizen and,
`
`upon the filing of this complaint, members of the putative plaintiff class may reside in states
`
`around the country; there are more than 100 putative class members; and the amount in
`
`controversy exceeds $5 million.
`
`
`2
`On December 17, 2020, Proposition 22 went into effect in California, which exempts
`certain app-based companies from A.B. 5. While it is possible that, as of December 17, 2020,
`Proposition 22 may relieve Uber Eats of its liability as alleged in this Amended Complaint, it is
`yet to be determined whether Uber Eats is in compliance with its requirements, and, thus,
`whether it may claim a defense under Proposition 22.
`4
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04062-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/04/21 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`10.
`
`Uber Eats is a San Francisco-based food delivery service, which engages drivers
`
`across the state of California to deliver food to its customers at their homes and businesses.
`
`11.
`
`Uber Eats offers customers the ability to order food via a mobile phone
`
`application, which its drivers then deliver.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Kent Hassell has driven for Uber Eats since January 2020.
`
`Although Uber Eats has classified Plaintiff (like all of its delivery drivers) as an
`
`“independent contractor,” Plaintiff has actually been Uber Eats’ employee under California law.
`
`14.
`
`Uber Eats drivers, including Plaintiff, provide a service in the usual course of
`
`Uber Eats’ business because Uber Eats is a food delivery service that provides on-demand meals
`
`to its customers, and delivery drivers such as Plaintiff perform that food delivery service. Uber
`
`Eats holds itself out as a food delivery service, and it generates revenue primarily from
`
`customers paying for the very food delivery services that its delivery drives provide. Without
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`delivery drivers like Plaintiff Hassell to provide the food delivery, Uber Eats would not exist.
`
`15.
`
`Uber Eats also requires its drivers, including Plaintiff, to abide by a litany of
`
`policies and rules designed to control the delivery drivers’ work performance. Uber Eats both
`
`retains the right to, and does in fact exercise, control over Plaintiff Hassell and other delivery
`
`drivers’ work.
`
`16.
`
`Uber Eats delivery drivers, including Plaintiff, are not typically engaged in their
`
`own transportation business. When delivering for Uber Eats, they wear the “hat” of Uber Eats.”
`
`Customers cannot request specific Uber Eats delivery drivers; instead, Uber Eats assigns
`
`particular deliveries to drivers.
`
`17.
`
`Uber Eats communicates directly with customers and follows up with delivery
`
`drivers, including Plaintiff, if the customer complains that the delivery failed to meet their
`
`5
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04062-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/04/21 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`expectations. Based on any customer feedback, Uber Eats may suspend or terminate delivery
`
`drivers at its sole discretion.
`
`18.
`
`Uber Eats drivers are engaged in interstate commerce. Indeed, drivers frequently
`
`transport food and beverages that originated across state lines (including food and beverages,
`
`such as sodas and chips, that are not transformed at the restaurants from which drivers deliver the
`
`meals to customers).
`
`19.
`
`Uber Eats does not require Plaintiff Hassell or other delivery drivers to possess
`
`any skill above and beyond that necessary to obtain a regular drivers’ license.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff Hassell and other delivery drivers’ tenure with Uber Eats is for an
`
`indefinite amount of time.
`
`21.
`
`Uber Eats provides the delivery drivers, including Plaintiff, with the primary
`
`instrumentality with which they can perform services for Uber Eats, namely the Uber Eats’
`
`software.
`
`22.
`
`Uber Eats sets the rate of pay for Plaintiff Hassell and other delivery drivers’
`
`16
`
`services and changes the rate of pay in its sole discretion.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff and other drivers’ vehicles must meet Uber Eats’ quality standards,
`
`which it determines and may change at any time at its sole discretion.
`
`24.
`
`Uber Eats may make promotional offers to customers that reduce delivery drivers’
`
`income without consulting drivers.
`
`25.
`
`Uber Eats monitors Plaintiff Hassell and other deliver drivers’ performance and
`
`may suspend or terminate delivery drivers who do not accept enough deliveries, cancel too many
`
`deliveries, do not maintain high customer satisfaction ratings, or engage in other conduct that
`
`Uber Eats, in its sole discretion, may determine constitutes grounds for suspension or
`
`termination.
`
`6
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04062-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/04/21 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`26.
`
`Uber Eats has not reimbursed delivery drivers, including Plaintiff Kent Hassell,
`
`for any expenses they incurred while working for Uber Eats, including, but not limited to, the
`
`cost of maintaining their vehicles, gas, insurance, and phone and data expenses for running the
`
`Uber Eats Application. Delivery drivers incurred these costs as a necessary expenditure to work
`
`for Uber Eats, which California law requires employers to reimburse.
`
`27.
`
`For example, Plaintiff Hassell has purchased approximately $90 worth of gas per
`
`week in order to fuel the 2000 Toyota Camry CE that he uses to make deliveries for Uber Eats.
`
`He would not have otherwise purchased this fuel absent his work for Uber Eats. The purchase of
`
`fuel is necessary to his work for Uber Eats because many the pick-up and drop-off locations that
`
`are assigned to him are too far away for him to travel without a car.
`
`28.
`
`Similarly, Plaintiff Hassell has also had to bear the cost of replacing his tires more
`
`frequently than before he started working for Uber Eats. Plaintiff Hassell purchased a new set of
`
`four tires in 2019 at a cost of approximately $270. Prior to working for Uber Eats Plaintiff
`
`15
`
`Hassell only had to replace his tires every few years.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Hassell seeks reimbursement for these and other expenses he has
`
`incurred by using his vehicle to make deliveries for Uber Eats by reference to the IRS mileage
`
`reimbursement rate.3
`
`
`3
`Another court in this District has certified a class in a prior case against Uber finding that
`the IRS reimbursement rate could be used as “a reasonable basis of computation of vehicle-
`related expenses” incurred by Uber drivers. O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 311 F.R.D. 547, 567
`(N.D. Cal. 2015), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 904 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2018). Thus,
`while Plaintiff can point to specific expenses that he incurred, the use of the federal IRS
`reimbursement rate may also be used to determine the amount of reimbursement due under Cal.
`Lab. Code § 2802. See Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., 42 Cal.4th 554, 569 (2007).
`
`Another court in this District has also made clear that, in the context of an app-based food
`
`delivery service, plaintiffs need not allege specific instances where expenses were incurred. See
`Tan v. GrubHub, Inc., 171 F.Supp.3d 998, 1006-07 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Instead, plaintiffs need
`only allege that vehicle and phone related expenses were required to deliver food and run the
`Application. See id.; see also Colopy v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2019 WL 6841218, *6 (N.D. Cal.
`Dec. 16, 2019).
`
`7
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04062-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/04/21 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff Hassell also had to switch his cellular data plan from an approximately
`
`$29 per month 8 GB plan from Tello Mobile to an approximately $39 per month unlimited data
`
`plan from the same mobile carrier in order to have enough data to run the Uber Eats App – which
`
`is the only way that Uber Eats sends him delivery assignments. He would not have purchased an
`
`unlimited data plan if he did not work for Uber Eats.
`
`31.
`
`Uber Eats has not reimbursed Plaintiff Hassell (or any Uber Eats drivers) for the
`
`cost of fuel, tires, his cellular data plan, or any other expense that he has incurred in order to
`
`carry out his work as a food delivery driver.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff Hassell, like other drivers, is subject to Uber Eats’ control during all
`
`hours worked: the time spent driving to a restaurant to pick up food, the time spent driving to a
`
`customer to deliver food, and the time spent online on the App between deliveries, while waiting
`
`for the next delivery.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff Hassell remains logged into the App between deliveries because it is the
`
`15
`
`only way for him to be able to receive a new delivery assignment from Uber Eats. He does this
`
`16
`
`for Uber Eats’ primary benefit because, unless Plaintiff and other drivers remain logged into the
`
`App between deliveries, Uber Eats would not have anyone to send delivery assignments to and,
`
`thus, there would be no one to bring Uber Eats’ customers their food. Drivers, including
`
`Plaintiff, are not able to freely engage in personal errands or activities while logged into the App
`
`between deliveries because Uber Eats requires that drivers either accept or reject delivery
`
`assignments that Uber Eats populates on their App within several seconds. If drivers, including
`
`Plaintiff, do not respond to these delivery assignment requests, their “acceptance rate” will
`
`decline, which may ultimately lead to disciplinary measures like suspension or termination. See
`
`Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., 8 Cal.5th 1038, 1056 (2020) (in considering whether an employee is
`
`subject to the employer’s control so as to render time compensable “courts may and should
`
`consider additional relevant factors – including, but not limited to, the location of the activity, the
`
`8
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04062-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/04/21 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`degree of the employer’s control, whether the activity primarily benefits the employer or
`
`employee, and whether the activity is enforced through disciplinary measures”).
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff Hassell does not perform personal errands or activities while he is
`
`waiting between orders so that he is available to respond to Uber Eats’ delivery assignments and
`
`avoid a low acceptance rate.
`
`35.
`
`Uber Eats has violated Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194 and 1197 by failing to assure that
`
`delivery drivers, including Plaintiff, make the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked,
`
`particularly after accounting for their expenses and other deductions taken from their pay. The
`
`hours they work are hours driving to a restaurant to pick up food, driving to the customer to
`
`deliver food, and driving between deliveries while awaiting their next delivery assignment.
`
`36.
`
`For example, the week of May 6, 2020 to May 10, 2020, Plaintiff Hassell only
`
`earned $ 9.90 per hour when accounting for all of his time spent on the Uber Eats Application
`
`(including driving to the restaurant, dropping off the delivery, and wait time between deliveries)
`
`15
`
`and after deducting expenses for mileage driven picking up and delivering food items and
`
`16
`
`between deliveries (calculated at the IRS standard reimbursement rate).
`
`37.
`
`Similarly, for the pay period of July 27, 2020 through August 2, 2020, Plaintiff
`
`Hassell only earned $10.78 per hour when accounting for all of his time spent on the Uber Eats
`
`App (including driving to the restaurant, dropping off the delivery, and wait time between
`
`deliveries) even before deducting expenses for mileage driven picking up and delivering food
`
`items and between deliveries (calculated at the IRS standard reimbursement rate). After
`
`deducting a total of $68.12 to account for the 75.4 miles (based on the IRS standard
`
`reimbursement rate of 57.5 cents per mile in 2020) that he drove picking up and delivering food
`
`items from his weekly earnings, his hourly rate for the pay period was $6.59 per hour. Further, if
`
`only considering the time Plaintiff Hassell spent actively engaged in deliveries (driving to pick
`
`up and deliver food) for the same July 27, 2020 through August 2, 2020 time period, Plaintiff’s
`
`9
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04062-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/04/21 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`hourly rate was $11.02 per hour before deductions for mileage and $6.74 per hour after
`
`deducting expenses based on the IRS mileage rate. Thus, Plaintiff received less than minimum
`
`wage for that week (and likely other weeks), regardless of whether or not the time spent between
`
`deliveries is taken into account and regardless of whether or not the expenses he incurred are
`
`taken into account.
`
`38.
`
`Uber Eats has violated Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1198, 510 and 554 by failing to
`
`pay its delivery drivers like Plaintiff the appropriate overtime premium for all overtime hours
`
`worked beyond forty per or eight per day.
`
`39.
`
`For example, Plaintiff Hassell has worked more than eight hours per day and
`
`more than forty per week at various times since he began delivering for Uber Eats and was never
`
`paid the appropriate premium for all hours worked beyond eight per day or forty per week. For
`
`example, for the week of February 3, 2020 to February 9, 2020, Plaintiff Hassell worked forty-
`
`four (44) hours and two minutes. 4 However, he did not receive time-and-a-half his regular rate
`
`15
`
`of pay for the time he spent driving beyond forty hours that week. The hours that Plaintiff
`
`16
`
`worked were hours spent driving to pick up deliveries at the restaurant, driving to drop off
`
`deliveries to customers at their homes and businesses, and time spent between deliveries while
`
`awaiting the next delivery assignment.
`
`40.
`
`Similarly, Plaintiff Hassell worked more than eight (8) hours in a day on multiple
`
`occasions, including on the dates listed below, but was never paid the appropriate premium for
`
`all hours worked beyond eight per day.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`The original Complaint (Dkt. 1) in this action mistakenly stated that Plaintiff worked
`forty-four (44) hours for the week of February 3, 2020 to February 10, 2020. Plaintiff Hassell
`did not perform any deliveries on February 10, 2020.
`10
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04062-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/04/21 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`Date
`
`Total Hours Worked
`(including time between
`deliveries)
`
`Hours Spent Driving to
`Pick Up Deliveries &
`Driving to Drop off
`Deliveries Only
`
`March 1, 2020
`
`8 hours and 43 minutes
`
`8 hours and 15 minutes
`
`September 27, 2020
`
`9 hours and 10 minutes
`
`9 hours and 1 minute
`
`November 1, 2020
`
`10 hours and 14 minutes
`
`9 hours and 58 minutes
`
`
`
`41.
`
`Uber Eats has violated Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a) by failing to provide proper
`
`itemized wage statements to delivery drivers, including Plaintiff, that include all of the requisite
`
`information required by California law, namely hours worked and hourly wages.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff Hassell has only been able to access his pay statements by logging into
`
`the Uber Eats App. His pay statements include a summary of his earnings, trip balances, any
`
`promotional deals that Uber Eats applied, and a list of all deliveries made during the relevant
`
`statement period with the date and time the order was accepted, the trip ID, and the earnings for
`
`the delivery. Any information about Plaintiff’s total hours worked (as defined in ¶ 32) is absent
`
`from his pay statements. Plaintiff is not aware of any other place on the App that he can access
`
`his total hours worked during a single pay period. Similarly, his pay statement has not included
`
`the total amount of time that he spent on a delivery driving to a restaurant to pick up an order and
`
`then driving to drop it off at the customer’s home or business.5 Additionally, Plaintiff’s pay
`
`statement also has not included hourly wages. Instead, the pay statement only lists the earnings
`
`for each individual delivery.
`
`
`5
`The only way that Plaintiff Hassell could access this information is by clicking on a
`hyperlink for each individual delivery listed on his pay statement and then be redirected to a
`separate page with start and end times for that specific delivery, calculate the total time spent on
`the delivery, and then add all delivery times together to reach a final sum for the statement
`period. This process by which Plaintiff could theoretically access this information is more
`burdensome than California law requires; under § 226(a), employers are required to provide this
`information on a paper pay statement and cannot force employees to undergo this burdensome
`process to access their wage information.
`
`11
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`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 4:20-cv-04062-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/04/21 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`43.
`
`Uber Eats has violated Cal. Lab. Code § 246 by not providing paid sick days to its
`
`delivery drivers, including Kent Hassell as required by California law. This provision requires
`
`employers to allow employees to accrue sick days at the rate of not less than one hour for every
`
`thirty hours worked, which they can use after working for the employer for 30 days within a year
`
`from the start of their employment and allows employees to use up to 24 hours of sick leave
`
`annually.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff Hassell performed deliveries for Uber Eats approximately 215 days
`
`between January 2020 and December 17, 2020, when Proposition 22 went into effect. He
`
`worked a total of 1,096.98 hours (which included 995.04 hours spent picking up and delivering
`
`food and 103.94 hours between deliveries waiting for new assignments) during this time period.
`
`Thus, Plaintiff Hassell should have accrued 24 hours of sick leave. Plaintiff Hassell has not
`
`accrued paid sick days since starting to work for Uber Eats in January 2020.
`
`45.
`
`Despite being sick several days in 2020, Plaintiff Hassell was aware that Uber
`
`15
`
`classified him as an independent contractor and did not provide paid sick leave pursuant to
`
`16
`
`California law, so it would have been futile for him to request it from Uber Eats.
`
`46.
`
`On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Dynamex,
`
`which made clear that Uber Eats delivery drivers should have been classified as employees rather
`
`than independent contractors under California law for purposes of wage-and-hour statutes.
`
`Under the “ABC” test adopted in Dynamex, in order to justify classifying the delivery drivers as
`
`independent contractors, Uber Eats would have had to prove that its delivery drivers perform
`
`services outside its usual course of business, which it could not do. Notwithstanding this
`
`decision, Uber Eats continued to misclassify its drivers as independent contractors.
`
`47.
`
`Furthermore, the California legislature took steps to clarify and codify the “ABC”
`
`test set forth in the Dynamex decision by passing Assembly Bill 5, which was passed into law by
`
`the California legislature and went into effect on January 1, 2020. The legislature had clearly
`
`12
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04062-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/04/21 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`intended for Uber to be covered by this statute; indeed, the author of the statute,
`
`Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, had made clear that Uber (and similar “gig economy”
`
`companies) would not be exempted from the law. Although Uber specifically lobbied to obtain a
`
`“carve-out” exemption from the law at the time it was enacted, it did not receive a carve-out
`
`from the legislature. Instead, after its enactment, in 2020, Uber was one of several “gig
`
`economy” companies that invested nearly $200 million to fund a ballot initiative, Proposition 22
`
`(which ultimately passed), seeking a carve-out for app-based “gig economy” companies from
`
`A.B. 5. Uber’s actions in opposing the law – and its expressed concern that the law would have
`
`a major impact on its business – were acknowledgments that A.B. 5 required it to classify its
`
`drivers as employees and provide employees with the protection of the California Labor Code.
`
`48.
`
`Uber Eats violated Cal. Lab. Code § 226.8 by willfully misclassifying drivers,
`
`including Plaintiff Hassell, as independent contractors, even after the issuance of the Dynamex
`
`decision by the California Supreme Court and the passage of A.B. 5, despite the fact that it held
`
`15
`
`itself out to the public as a food delivery service and Plaintiff Hassell performed food delivery
`
`16
`
`services within Uber Eats’ usual course of business. It was widely discussed throughout
`
`California, after the issuance of Dynamex and the passage of A.B. 5, that gig economy
`
`companies such as Uber were violating the law by continuing to classify their drivers as
`
`independent contractors. See, e.g., Rogers v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-01938-VC (Transcript
`
`re Hearing on Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction) at 28-29 (explaining that AB5
`
`clearly applies, and was intended to apply to, gig economy companies like Lyft); John Myers,
`
`Uber, Lyft, DoorDash launch a $90-million fight against California Labor Law, L.A. Times,
`
`Oct. 29, 2019, accessible at: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-29/uber-lyft-
`
`doordash-fight-california-labor-law-ab5; Alexia Fernandez Campbell, Gig Workers’ Win in
`
`California Is a Victory for Workers Everywhere, Vox (Sept. 11, 2019), accessible at:
`
`https://www.vox.com/2019/9/11/20851034/california-ab-5-workers-labor-unions.
`
`13
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-04062-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/04/21 Page 14 of 19
`
`
`
`V.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff Kent Hassell brings this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all Uber Eats drivers who have worked in
`
`California.
`
`50.
`
`The class representative and other class members have uniformly been
`
`misclassified as independent contractors.
`
`51.
`
`The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all class members is
`
`impracticable.
`
`52.
`
`Common questions of law and fact regarding Uber Eats’ conduct exist as to all
`
`members of the class and predominate over any questions affecting solely any individual
`
`members of the class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the class are:
`
`a. Whether the work performed by class members – providing food delivery service
`
`to customers – is within Uber Eats’ usual course of business, and whether such
`
`service is fully integrated into Uber Eats’ business;
`
`b. Whether class members have been required to work under Uber Eats’ direction
`
`and control;
`
`c. Whether class members have been engaged in an independently established
`
`business or occupation while they are delivering food to Uber Eats’ customers;
`
`d. Whether class members have been required to bear the expenses of their
`
`employment, such as expenses for their vehicle, gas, and other expenses;
`
`e. Whether class members have suffered other violations of the California Labor
`
`Code and Wage Orders, as described herein.
`
`53.
`
`The class representative is a member of the class who suffer