Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 21
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`CASSANDRA OSVATICS, on behalf of
`herself and all others similarly situated,
`
` 13218 Ovalstone Lane
` Bowie, Maryland 20715
`
`
`
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Cassandra Osvatics, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`by her attorneys, Outten & Golden LLP, upon personal knowledge as to herself and upon
`
`information and belief as to other matters, alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`The District of Columbia, like other jurisdictions, has a carefully designed
`
`framework in place for regulating workplaces to protect employees. These protections include
`
`minimum wage guarantees, expense reimbursement requirements, and – critical to public health
`
`and the current pandemic – paid sick leave.
`
`2.
`
`Experts have found that providing paid sick leave is a significant way to reduce
`
`the spread of illness.1 In the District of Columbia, employers – like Defendant Lyft, Inc.
`
`
`1
`Claire Cain Miller, et al., Avoiding Coronavirus May Be a Luxury Some Workers Can’t
`Afford, N.Y. Times (Mar. 2, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/upshot/coronavirus-
`sick-days-service-workers.html (quoting a Cornell University associate professor of economics
`as stating, “It’s very clear: When people don’t have access to sick leave, they go to work sick and
`spread diseases.”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 21
`
`(“Lyft”) – that are covered by the D.C. Accrued Safe and Sick Leave Act (“ASSLA”), D.C.
`
`Code §§ 32-531.01-531.16, are required to provide paid sick leave.
`
`3.
`
`Given the current COVID-19 pandemic, which some experts predict could last for
`
`years,2 the need for paid sick leave is vitally important. Without it, Lyft forces its drivers into a
`
`Hobbesian choice: risk their lives (and the lives of their passengers) or risk their livelihoods.
`
`The D.C. Council enacted the ASSLA so that workers would not have to make such a choice.
`
`4.
`
`Lyft in particular has a history of failing to comply with the ASSLA, to the
`
`detriment of its drivers and the public. Though it has claimed to provide paid sick leave to its
`
`drivers during the pandemic, the policy has been criticized as “illusory” and a “bait and switch.”3
`
`Lyft’s vague and limited paid sick leave does not comply with the ASSLA because it only covers
`
`“drivers diagnosed with COVID-19 or put under individual quarantine by a public health agency
`
`— [for] an amount determined by the driver’s previous activity on the Lyft platform.” Helping
`
`Lyft’s Driver Community, Lyft, https://www.lyft.com/safety/coronavirus/driver (last visited May
`
`26, 2020).
`
`5.
`
`The ASSLA, which was first enacted in 2008, requires employers with 100 or
`
`more employees to provide not less than one hour of paid sick leave for every 37 hours worked.
`
`D.C. Code Ann. § 32-531.02(a)(1). Under the ASSLA, sick leave may be used for absences
`
`resulting in: physical or mental illness, preventive medical care, caring for an ill child, parent,
`
`spouse, domestic partner, or other family member, and/or an absence because the employee or
`
`
`2
`Stephen M. Kissler, et al., Projecting the Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2
`Through the Postpandemic Period, Science, May 22, 2020 at 860-68,
`https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6493/860 (“One scenario is that a resurgence in
`SARS-CoV-2 could occur as far into the future as 2025.”).
`3
`Dana Kerr, Lyft Pulls Bait-and-Switch on Promised Coronavirus Sick Pay, Drivers Say,
`CNET (Apr. 8, 2020), https://www.cnet.com/news/lyft-quietly-adjusts-its-coronavirus-sick-pay-
`policy-for-drivers/.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 21
`
`employee’s family member is a victim of “stalking, domestic violence, or sexual abuse.” Id.
`
`§ 32-531.02(b).
`
`6.
`
`For these reasons, Plaintiff brings this action against Lyft to enforce the essential
`
`rights provided under the ASSLA, on behalf of all drivers who work or worked for Lyft in the
`
`District of Columbia for at least 90 days between when Lyft began operating in the District of
`
`Columbia4 and the date of final judgment in this matter (the “Class” or “Class Members”).
`
`Plaintiff Cassandra Osvatics
`
`PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Cassandra Osvatics is an adult individual residing in Bowie, Maryland.
`
`Plaintiff Osvatics has a driver’s license issued by the State of Maryland.
`
`Plaintiff Osvatics worked as a driver for Lyft from approximately November 2015
`
`to June 2018. Plaintiff Osvatics regularly worked between 10 to 15 hours per week for
`
`Defendant, with some weeks where she worked over 35 hours per week.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Osvatics spent more than 50% of her time with Lyft working in the
`
`District of Columbia.
`
`Defendant Lyft, Inc.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant Lyft, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters
`
`and primary place of business in San Francisco, California.
`
`12.
`
`Lyft does business in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and, upon
`
`information and belief, in at least 30 other states in the United States.
`
`13.
`
`Lyft is an App-based transportation provider that has been based in San
`
`Francisco, California, since 2012.
`
`
`4
`Upon information and belief, Lyft began operating in the District of Columbia after the
`enactment of the ASSLA on November 13, 2008.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 of 21
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`14.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)
`
`because Plaintiff is a citizen of a different state from Defendant and the amount in controversy
`
`exceeds $75,000. The Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1332(d) because this is a class action; Plaintiff Osvatics and, upon information and belief, at
`
`least one class member, is a citizen of a state different from Lyft; and the amount in controversy
`
`exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia.
`
`Venue is proper in this District because a substantial part of the events or
`
`omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Lyft’s Business
`
`17.
`
`Lyft provides riders with transportation by assigning Lyft drivers to riders using a
`
`mobile phone application (the “Lyft App”).
`
`18.
`
`The driver then transports the rider, and the rider pays Lyft for the service with a
`
`credit card via the Lyft App.
`
`19.
`
`Lyft sets the fare to be paid by the rider and communicates it to the rider via the
`
`Lyft App.
`
`20.
`
`Upon information and belief, Lyft pays the driver approximately 80% of the ride
`
`fare plus 100% of any added tip, while Lyft keeps approximately 20% of the fare for itself.
`
`21.
`
`Drivers cannot negotiate a different payment arrangement.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 5 of 21
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members Are Employees.
`
`22.
`
`The work that drivers perform is in the usual course of Lyft’s business – indeed,
`
`providing driving services is Lyft’s business.
`
`23.
`
`Lyft describes itself as “one of the largest and fastest growing multimodal
`
`transportation networks in the United States.” See Lyft, Inc., Securities and Exchange
`
`Commission Form S-1 Registration Statement, at 1 (March 1, 2019) (“S-1 Statement”),
`
`https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1759509/000119312519059849/d633517ds1.htm.
`
`24.
`
`As drivers, Plaintiff and Class Members provide or provided the service that Lyft
`
`sells to the public.
`
`25.
`
`Lyft states that it participates in the “transportation . . . market,” and describes its
`
`business as “singularly focused on revolutionizing transportation.” S-1 Statement at 3-4.
`
`26.
`
`Lyft earns money by providing its customers with a ride from point A to point B –
`
`a service that is wholly dependent on Lyft drivers, like Plaintiff.
`
`27.
`
`Lyft’s “business depends largely on [its] ability to cost-effectively attract and
`
`retain qualified drivers.” S-1 Statement at 10.
`
`28.
`
`Lyft does not merely provide a platform, nor is it an uninterested bystander
`
`between drivers and riders. As other courts have found, “Lyft concerns itself with far more than
`
`simply connecting random users of its platform. It markets itself to customers as an on-demand
`
`ride service, and it actively seeks out those customers. It gives drivers detailed instructions about
`
`how to conduct themselves. Notably, Lyft’s own drivers’ guide and FAQs state that drivers are
`
`‘driving for Lyft.’” Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 60 F. Supp. 3d 1067, 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2015); see also
`
`Cunningham v. Lyft, Inc., No. 19 Civ. 11974, 2020 WL 2616302, at *10 (D. Mass. May 22,
`
`2020) (explaining that the “‘realities’ of Lyft’s business are no more merely ‘connecting’ riders
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 6 of 21
`
`and drivers than a grocery store’s business is merely connecting shoppers and food producers,”
`
`but rather “focusing on the reality of what the business offers its customers, the business of a
`
`grocery stores is selling groceries . . . and Lyft’s business – from which it derives its revenue –
`
`is transporting riders”).
`
`29.
`
`Lyft screens every driver, including Plaintiff, “before they are permitted to drive
`
`on [its] platform, starting with professional third-party background and driving record checks.”
`
`See S-1 Statement at 148. Background checks are performed routinely. See Driver
`
`Requirements, Lyft, https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115012925687 (last visited May 22,
`
`2020).
`
`30.
`
`Lyft can terminate the right of drivers to provide driving services for violating one
`
`or more of the rules that Lyft imposes by contract.
`
`31.
`
`Drivers lack business autonomy. Drivers are not engaged in an independently
`
`established business. They cannot provide transportation services without the Lyft App and
`
`cannot use contacts made through the Lyft App to solicit private transportation clients. Drivers
`
`are dependent on Lyft to identify riders for them. Drivers may not hire employees to assist them
`
`in providing services for Lyft.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 7 of 21
`
`32.
`
`Lyft drivers in the District of Columbia are required to display the Lyft emblem
`
`when driving for it in the “lower corner of the[ir] rear passenger side window.” Washington
`
`D.C. Driver Information, Lyft, https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115012929787-
`
`Washington-D-C-Driver-Information (last visited May 22, 2020).
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, when Lyft approves a driver to work in the District
`
`of Columbia, that driver still needs to get separate approval from Lyft to drive outside of
`
`Virginia, Maryland, or the District of Columbia. See Lyft Driver and Vehicle Requirements in
`
`Washington, DC, Lyft, https://www.lyft.com/driver/cities/washington-dc/driver-application-
`
`requirements (last visited May 22, 2020).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 8 of 21
`
`34.
`
`Lyft drivers do not need to possess any particular or special skills other than those
`
`required to obtain a driver’s license. See id. (listing as driver requirements a “Valid Washington,
`
`DC, Maryland, or Virginia driver’s license,” “21 or older,” “Pass driver screening,” and a
`
`“smartphone that can download and run the Lyft Driver app”).
`
`35.
`
`By working for Lyft, drivers have not independently made the decision to go into
`
`business for themselves.
`
`36.
`
`Lyft has unilaterally determined that drivers are independent contractors while
`
`precluding them from taking the usual steps toward promoting and establishing an independent
`
`business, such as forming business relationships with Lyft customers or otherwise promoting
`
`their services to the public.
`
`37.
`
`Lyft also prohibits drivers from setting or in any way affecting the rates of pay for
`
`their own services.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`Lyft prohibits drivers from communicating with riders about future ride services.
`
`Lyft is solely responsible for recording drivers’ rides, including the time and
`
`distance for each ride, the ride fare and added Lyft fees, any tips, and for compiling drivers’ rates
`
`of pay for each ride.
`
`40.
`
`Lyft controls the terms of employment and maintains uniform policies and terms
`
`of service with which all drivers must comply.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 9 of 21
`
`41.
`
`For example, Plaintiff used her own car to provide rides for Lyft, which per Lyft
`
`policy could not be a two-door car or more than a number of years old. See Lyft Driver and
`
`Vehicle Requirements in Washington, DC, supra (describing vehicle requirements).
`
`42.
`
`Once drivers pass Lyft’s initial requirements, they are able to work for Lyft for an
`
`indefinite period of time. Lyft, however, may shut down drivers’ access to the Lyft App for
`
`myriad reasons, thus preventing them from obtaining and responding to ride requests.
`
`43.
`
`Drivers perform work for Lyft by logging in to the Lyft App, making themselves
`
`available for assignments and visible to Lyft users, which benefits Lyft. While logged in, drivers
`
`typically receive ride assignments quickly, sometimes receiving a new ride assignment before
`
`completing the existing ride.
`
`44.
`
`On information and belief, until the beginning of 2018, Lyft required that drivers
`
`accept at least 90% of ride assignments to avoid being terminated. Now, Lyft “use[s] acceptance
`
`rates to determine driver eligibility for certain features and help keep passenger wait times
`
`short.” Acceptance Rate, Lyft, https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013077708-
`
`Acceptance-rate (last visited May 15, 2020). Lyft calculates drivers’ acceptance rates by adding
`
`the number of rides a driver completes to the number of rides cancelled by the rider, and dividing
`
`that number by the total number of ride assignments shown to the driver. Lyft explains that a
`
`driver’s acceptance rate may decrease due to missed assignments, such as when a driver lets the
`
`timer count down to zero, and by driver cancellations.
`
`45.
`
`Lyft’s manner of assigning rides – including the frequency of ride assignment
`
`messages, the very short window within which a driver can accept rides, and the threat of
`
`termination for failure to accept the vast majority of rides – prevents drivers from engaging in
`
`personal activities while logged into the Lyft App.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 10 of 21
`
`46.
`
`For example, Plaintiff took care to log out of the Lyft App at all times when she
`
`was not engaged in providing a ride for Lyft or making herself available for the next ride. When
`
`performing work for Lyft that goes beyond those two activities, Plaintiff typically logged out of
`
`the Lyft App. She scheduled her personal activities to minimize the risk of missing ride
`
`assignments because of Lyft’s systematic pressure on drivers logged into the Lyft App to accept
`
`virtually all ride assignments.
`
`47.
`
`Lyft recognizes that drivers’ time while logged into the Lyft App is not their own.
`
`Specifically, Lyft advises drivers to log out and take a break if they do not plan to accept ride
`
`assignments: “If you can’t or don’t want to accept ride requests, we recommend taking a break.”
`
`Id.
`
`48.
`
`Lyft has continued to classify Plaintiff and Class Members as independent
`
`contractors notwithstanding that its classification policy has been the subject of several lawsuits.
`
`See, e.g., Cotter, 60 F. Supp. 3d 1067.
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members Regularly Crossed and Cross Interstate Borders as Drivers.
`
`49.
`
`As Lyft drivers in the D.C. metropolitan area, Plaintiff and Class Members
`
`routinely engaged and engage in interstate commerce by transporting riders across state lines in
`
`return for compensation from Lyft.
`
`50.
`
`The D.C. metropolitan area encompasses not only the District of Columbia, but
`
`also adjacent counties in Maryland and Virginia.5
`
`
`5
`See, e.g., Sharon Feigon, et al., Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Between
`Public Transit, Shared Mobility, and Personal Automobiles (“Princeton Study”) at A-1 (2018),
`https://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/SmartDrivingCars/PDFs/TRB_Jan2018_BroadeningUnderstan
`dingnterplayBetweenPublic.pdf (defining Washington, D.C. as the “District of Columbia;
`Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, MD; Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, and Falls
`Church counties, VA”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 11 of 21
`
`51.
`
`Indeed, according to the Princeton Study, peak-hour usage of rideshare apps like
`
`the Lyft App in the District of Columbia occur between certain “contiguous corridors” stretching
`
`“across the broadest central section of the District . . . which includes Union Station, west to
`
`Georgetown and across the Potomac to Arlington.”6
`
`52.
`
`Lyft’s D.C. website reflects this reality and includes the entire metropolitan area
`
`within its service area. See Washington, D.C., Lyft,
`
`https://www.lyft.com/rider/cities/washington-dc (last visited May 22, 2020).
`
`53.
`
`Given its multi-state scope, residents of the D.C. metropolitan area are especially
`
`likely to cross state lines, including for work.
`
`54.
`
`For example, according to recent D.C. Department of Human Resources (“DHR”)
`
`statistics, nonresidents were a majority of the 35,302 employees in the various “career,”
`
`
`6
`Id. at 13 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 12 of 21
`
`“educational,” “excepted,” “executive,” “legal” and “management supervisory” services of the
`
`D.C. government, broken down as: 16,103 Marylanders, 3,579 Virginians, 429 residents of other
`
`jurisdictions, and 15,191 D.C. residents.7
`
`55.
`
`As the seat of the federal government, the D.C. metropolitan area, defined by the
`
`Census Core Statistical Base Area (“CBSA”) that includes counties in Maryland, Virginia, and
`
`West Virginia, is home to approximately 282,666 federal employees, over 15% of the entire
`
`federal civilian workforce.8 Upon information and belief, many of these hundreds of thousands
`
`of federal workers cross state lines, in one direction or the other, to report to work each day at
`
`myriad federal agencies located in each of the subdivisions constituting the CBSA.
`
`56.
`
`Reflecting the multi-state composition of the District of Columbia’s workforce,
`
`pursuant to Lyft’s policies and practices a driver can be dispatched for pickups in the District of
`
`Columbia if they have a driver’s license from the District of Columbia, Maryland, or Virginia.
`
`Washington D.C. Driver Information, Lyft, https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-
`
`us/articles/115012929787-Washington-D-C-Driver-Information (last visited May 22, 2020).
`
`
`7
`Colbert I. King, Washington, D.C., Is Run by People Who Don’t Even Live There, Wash.
`Post, July 1, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-city-run-by-
`nonresidents/2016/07/01/e781bfe0-3f06-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html.
`8
`U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., Data, Analytics, and Documentation. Federal Civilian
`Employment (Sept. 2017), https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-
`documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/federal-civilian-employment/.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 13 of 21
`
`57.
`
`Similarly, active members of the U.S. military, and their families, stationed in the
`
`District of Columbia, Maryland or Virginia can also drive for Lyft in the District of Columbia if
`
`they follow certain requirements. Id.
`
`58.
`
`The District of Columbia’s major airports are also all located outside of the
`
`District of Columbia, requiring travel across state lines to reach them: Dulles International
`
`Airport and Reagan National Airport are located in Virginia, and the Baltimore-Washington
`
`International Thurgood Marshall Airport (“BWI”) is located in Maryland.
`
`59.
`
`These airports are high volume trip origins and destinations for drivers, including
`
`Plaintiff.9 In fact, according to the Princeton Study, trips from the District of Columbia to the
`
`Virginia zip code containing Reagan National Airport was the fifth most frequent destination in
`
`the entire study dataset, which included studies of five major metropolitan areas covering tens of
`
`millions of rideshare users.10
`
`
`9
`See Princeton Study at 19, 23-24.
`10
`Id. at 7-8, 23-24.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 14 of 21
`
`60.
`
`Thus, Plaintiff frequently took passengers from the District of Columbia and
`
`Maryland to the airports in Virginia, and, likewise, frequently took passengers from the District
`
`of Columbia and Virginia to BWI, crossing state lines in the process.
`
`61.
`
`Lyft specifically markets airport trips to D.C. riders. Washington, D.C., supra.
`
`62.
`
`Airport business is sufficiently important to Lyft that it also has specific
`
`requirements for how Lyft drivers are to conduct themselves there when picking up or dropping
`
`off riders. See Washington D.C. Airport Information for Drivers, Lyft,
`
`https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013082588 (last visited May 22, 2020).
`
`63.
`
`Similarly, many Lyft rides, including those Plaintiff performed, originate or
`
`conclude at Union Station.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 15 of 21
`
`64.
`
`Union Station is a central hub for interstate rail and bus travel. For example,
`
`according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, in 2017, Union Station was the second
`
`busiest Amtrak station in the country, registering roughly 5.2 million passengers.11
`
`65.
`
`At least six private companies provide interstate bus services at Union Station,
`
`including Bolt Bus, Megabus, BestBus, Washington Deluxe, Peter Pan, and Virginia Breeze.12
`
`Many of these companies provide “daily service” from the District of Columbia to other states,
`
`such as New York.13
`
`66. Many more passengers use Union Station for interstate transportation via the
`
`Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s (“WMATA”) Red Line, which provides
`
`direct access to Maryland, and indirect access to Virginia (and other parts of Maryland) through
`
`connections to other WMATA lines, such as the Orange, Blue, Yellow, Green, and Silver Lines.
`
`67.
`
`Union Station further facilitates significant interstate travel as a central stop for
`
`the Maryland Area Regional Commuter (“MARC”) train. The MARC train has long served as
`
`the daily commuter line for over 30,000 passengers.14
`
`68.
`
`Thus, Lyft drivers routinely transport people who themselves are engaged in
`
`interstate activity.
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiff estimates that, when driving for Lyft, she spent at least 50% of her time
`
`in the District of Columbia, at least 20% of her time in Virginia, and at least 20% in Maryland.
`
`
`11
`U.S. Dep’t of Transp., Transportation Statistics Annual Report (2018),
`https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statistical-products-and-
`data/transportation-statistics-annual-reports/TSAR-Full-2018-Web-Final.pdf (last visited May
`22, 2020).
`12
`See Ground Transportation, Union Station, https://www.unionstationdc.com/Ground-
`Transportation/ (last visited May 22, 2020).
`13
`Id.
`14
`Md. Transit Admin., MARC Growth and Investment Plan (Sept. 2007),
`https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/MARC02282010.pdf.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 16 of 21
`
`70.
`
`Together, because the D.C. metropolitan area consists of multiple states, drivers
`
`from the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia can all drive for Lyft in the District of
`
`Columbia, and since the major D.C. airports are in separate states, Class Members routinely
`
`crossed and cross state lines in the performance of their work for Lyft.
`
`71.
`
`For instance, because Plaintiff lives in Maryland, she repeatedly began her day of
`
`work for Lyft by taking a Maryland resident into the District of Columbia, and ended her day of
`
`work for Lyft by returning a Maryland resident from the District of Columbia to Maryland.
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiff’s experiences resemble those of other Class Members.
`
`Lyft Did Not Maintain a Paid Sick Leave Policy and Did Not Provide Notice.
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`Lyft did not and does not have a sick leave policy that complies with the ASSLA.
`
`Lyft did not and does not “post and maintain in a conspicuous place, a notice that
`
`sets forth excerpts from or summaries of the pertinent provisions of [Subchapter III, Chapter 5,
`
`Title 32 of the D.C. Code] and information that pertains to the filing of a complaint under” the
`
`same. D.C. Code § 32-531.09(a).
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`Lyft did not provide Plaintiff with any paid sick leave during her employment.
`
`As a result, on multiple occasions, Plaintiff drove for Lyft while sick because she
`
`relied on hourly and tipped work for her wages and to pay bills.
`
`77.
`
`Plaintiff would have used paid sick leave if Lyft had provided it to her.
`
`CLASS-WIDE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`78.
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as alleged
`
`above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiff brings her Cause of Action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), (b)(3) and/or (c)(4)
`
`of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all drivers who work or worked for Lyft in
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 17 of 21
`
`the District of Columbia for at least 90 days between when Lyft began operating in the District
`
`of Columbia and the date of final judgment in this matter (the “Class” or “Class Members”).
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`Plaintiff is a member of the Class she seeks to represent.
`
`Not included in the Class are the following individuals and/or entities: Lyft’s
`
`officers and directors and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their
`
`staffs and immediate family members.
`
`82.
`
`The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The
`
`precise number is uniquely within Lyft’s possession. Upon information and belief, the Class
`
`consists of at least 100 individuals.15
`
`83.
`
`There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, and these questions
`
`predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common questions include,
`
`among others:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`willful;
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Whether Class Members are employees or independent contractors;
`
`Whether Class Members are entitled to paid sick leave under the ASSLA;
`
`Whether Lyft’s classification of drivers as independent contractors was
`
`The proper measure of damages sustained by Class Members; and
`
`Whether injunctive and declaratory relief is warranted regarding Lyft’s
`
`policies and practices.
`
`
`15
`According to U.S. Census data, the D.C. metropolitan area added nearly 10,000 new
`rideshare drivers across platforms each year between 2014 and 2017, converting the rideshare
`sector into a more than $1 billion industry in this region. See Jordan Fischer, 10,000 New
`Rideshare Drivers a Year: New Census Data Shows How Industry Has Exploded in DC Area,
`WUSA (June 28, 2019), https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/10000-new-rideshare-
`drivers-a-year-new-census-data-shows-how-industry-has-exploded-in-dc-area/65-009e37e9-
`b33b-456f-bab2-3a97aa25aef7 (citing U.S. Census data).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 18 of 21
`
`84.
`
`Plaintiff, like other Class Members, was subjected to Lyft’s policies and practices
`
`that violated D.C. law. Plaintiff’s job duties and claims were and are typical of those of the
`
`Class Members.
`
`85.
`
`Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class
`
`Members. There is no conflict between Plaintiff and the Class Members. Plaintiff’s counsel is
`
`experienced in employment class actions and will fairly and adequately represent and protect the
`
`interests of the Class Members.
`
`86.
`
`87.
`
`Class treatment would benefit the courts and Class Members.
`
`Class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) and/or (c)(4) because
`
`common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual
`
`Class Members. Penalties for violation of the ASSLA are provided by statute and can be
`
`mechanically calculated, and are relatively small compared to the significant expense and burden
`
`of individual prosecution of this litigation. In addition, a class action is superior to other
`
`available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation and will obviate the
`
`need for unduly duplicative litigation which might result in inconsistent judgments about Lyft’s
`
`practices.
`
`88.
`
`Class certification is also appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) and/or (c)(4) because
`
`Defendant has acted and/or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that
`
`final injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the Class as a whole. Class
`
`Members are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief to end Defendant’s common, uniform,
`
`unfair, and illegal policies and practices.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 19 of 21
`
`CAUSE OF ACTION
`D.C. Accrued Safe and Sick Leave Act – Failure to Provide Sick Leave
`(Brought on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding
`
`89.
`
`paragraphs.
`
`90.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class Members have been employees and Lyft
`
`has been an employer within the meaning of the ASSLA. D.C. Code § 32-531.01(2), (3)(A).
`
`91.
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members are covered by the ASSLA.
`
`Lyft employed Plaintiff and Class Members.
`
`Lyft violated the ASSLA, in relevant part, by failing to provide Plaintiff and Class
`
`Members “not less than one hour of paid leave for every 37 hours worked, not to exceed 7 days
`
`per calendar year.” D.C. Code § 32-531.02.
`
`94.
`
`95.
`
`Lyft’s violations of the ASSLA are ongoing.
`
`Because Lyft did not and does not “post and maintain in a conspicuous place, a
`
`notice that sets forth excerpts from or summaries of the pertinent provisions of [Subchapter III,
`
`Chapter 5, Title 32 of the D.C. Code] and information that pertains to the filing of a complaint
`
`under” the same, D.C. Code § 32-531.09(a), the statute of limitations for claims against Lyft has
`
`been tolled since the enactment of ASSLA, see id. § 32-531.10a.
`
`96.
`
`97.
`
`Lyft’s violations of the ASSLA have been willful and intentional.
`
`For example, while Lyft has recognized the propriety of providing some form of
`
`sick leave for D.C. drivers,16 it is a sham process and Lyft has otherwise refused to comply with
`
`the ASSLA – the D.C. Council mandated means of providing paid sick leave.
`
`
`16
`Kerr, supra note 3.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01426-KBJ Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 20 of 21
`
`98.
`
`Due to Lyft’s violations of the ASSLA, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled
`
`to recover from Lyft damages including but not limited to lost wages, statutory penalties,
`
`compensatory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action, and
`
`pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. D.C. Code § 32-531.12(b), (c), (e), (g).
`
`99.
`
`In addition to damages, Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to injunctive and
`
`declaratory relief to correct Lyft’s illegal policies and practices.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the
`
`following relief:
`
`A.
`
`Certification of the Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Fe