throbber
Case 4:20-cv-04062-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 19
`
`
`
`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

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