Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 1 of 19
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------x
`MD ISLAM, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Index No.
`
`COMPLAINT
`JURY TRIAL
`DEMANDED
`
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`Plaintiff MD Islam, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, by and through his
`
`undersigned counsel Mirer Mazzocchi & Julien, and Zubin Soleimany, Esq., and upon personal
`
`knowledge as to himself and upon information and belief as to other matters, hereby alleges as
`
`follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`Plaintiff brings this breach of contract action on behalf of himself and similarly situated New
`
`York City drivers who, in the period from on or about June 27, 2019 to the present, have been
`
`subjected to Lyft’s unlawful practice, in violation of the driver agreement, of forcibly logging off
`
`Lyft drivers from the Lyft app if they perform fewer than 100, or 180 rides in a 30-day period.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`In 2014, Lyft, Inc.. (“Lyft”) began its New York City operations as a New York
`
`City Taxi and Limousine Commission (“TLC”) licensed Black Car company, providing private
`
`for-hire vehicle transportation.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 2 of 19
`
`2.
`
`Early on, Lyft recruited heavily among existing professional drivers and non-
`
`drivers alike. Lyft touted the alleged flexibility of working for Lyft, advertising to potential
`
`drivers that they could choose their own hours and be their own boss.
`
`3.
`
`Lyft recruited an unlimited number of drivers, encouraging them to work full-time
`
`hours by enticing drivers with higher pay if they would work 30-50+ hours a week. For
`
`example, for years after Lyft’s entry into the New York market, Lyft promised drivers a “Power
`
`Driver Bonus,” in which Lyft would cut its percentage commission or “Lyft Fee” by 50% for
`
`drivers who drove 30-49 hours per week, and would eliminate the commission entirely for
`
`drivers who drove 50 or more hours per week.
`
`4.
`
`In this way, the bargain was set: Lyft drivers could earn a decent living so long as
`
`they put in enough hours-- and anyone who wanted to could put in enough hours. With promises
`
`made and expectations set that signing up to work for Lyft meant full-time work for anybody
`
`who wanted it, drivers entered into long-term lease agreements for TLC-licensed for-hire
`
`vehicles and took on other significant expenses to work for Lyft.
`
`5.
`
`However, Lyft’s push to recruit more and more drivers led to an oversaturation of
`
`the FHV ride market which threatened the ability of each driver to earn a decent living.
`
`6.
`
`Yet, because Lyft treated its drivers as independent contractors, the company had
`
`always been able to externalize the costs of its oversaturation. If Lyft sold 150,000 trips a day,
`
`its revenue would be the same regardless of whether there were 25,000 or 50,000 Lyft drivers on
`
`the road; however, this oversaturation would leave each individual driver with less take-home
`
`pay.
`
`7.
`
`One result of this oversaturation was that, as the total available number of trips
`
`became diluted across an ever-growing pool of vehicles, app-based FHV drivers began working
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 3 of 19
`
`for multiple app-based FHV services, in the hopes that by receiving dispatches from two or more
`
`companies, drivers would be more likely to receive more trip requests, thus reducing their unpaid
`
`downtime between trips.
`
`8.
`
`In doing so, a driver who may previously have spent 50 hours a week online for
`
`one company, and performed 65 trips, would now still work 50 hours per week, but, e.g.,
`
`perform 40 trips for one company, and 30 trips for another company.
`
`9.
`
`By the summer of 2018, after a rash of driver suicides, including drivers of app-
`
`based FHV services, the City Council passed several laws to improve the plight of drivers and
`
`stem the tide of their declining income. Along with several other bills aimed at addressing the
`
`crisis in the taxi and FHV industry, the Council passed Local Law 147, which limited the further
`
`issuance of new vehicle licenses for FHVs, and Local Law 150, which empowered the TLC to
`
`promulgate rules governing earnings standards for drivers who work for high-volume FHV bases
`
`such as Uber and Lyft.
`
`10.
`
`Pursuant to Local Law 150, the TLC passed driver minimum pay regulation in the
`
`fall of 2018, with the aim of providing drivers with compensation of $17.22/hour, after all
`
`expenses, for all time that drivers spent “online,” or logged on to apps, and either waiting to
`
`perform trips or performing trips. Specifically, the TLC pay rules established minimum per mile
`
`and per-minute rates that high-volume for-hire vehicle companies such as Lyft would have to
`
`pay drivers for all trips performed. See, 35 R.C.N.Y. § 59B-24. Driver pay rates would also be
`
`adjusted according to each company’s “utilization rate,” which is the percentage of time that a
`
`company’s cars, when logged into the company’s app, are actively transporting passengers.
`
`11.
`
`The TLC pay formula requires high-volume FHV bases to pay drivers rates that
`
`amount to $17.22/hour, plus expenses for every minute and mile of time a driver spends
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 4 of 19
`
`performing a trip. In order to ensure that drivers are fairly compensated for the downtime
`
`between each trip, The TLC pay rule divides the payments for each mile and minute by the
`
`percentage utilization rate of the HVFHV base, effectively multiplying the per-mile and per-
`
`minute pay rates of each trip to effectively multiply hourly pay rates to cover the 42% empty
`
`time between trips. Id.
`
`12.
`
`Although Lyft sued the City of New York to enjoin implementation of TLC driver
`
`pay rules, the City prevailed and the driver pay rules went into effect in February 2019. See, Tri-
`
`City, LLC v. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, Index No. 151037 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.
`
`Co. Apr. 30, 2019), NYSCEF Doc. No. 73.
`
`13.
`
`After losing this lawsuit, on or about June 27, 2019, Lyft, in violation of its
`
`contract with drivers, began to limit drivers’ access to the app, in an apparent attempt to avoid
`
`its obligations under TLC rules to ensure that drivers earn a decent minimum wage for all hours
`
`that they are performing trips or are available to perform trips.
`
`14.
`
`Such actions violate the spirit, if not the letter, of TLC regulations intended to
`
`confer basic labor protections upon some of the City’s most vulnerable low-wage workers.
`
`15.
`
`Crucially, the Lyft contracts specifically provide that drivers shall have no
`
`limitations on their ability of where and when to access the Lyft app.
`
`16.
`
`Thus, Lyft’s forced log-outs and restricted access to the Lyft app constitute a
`
`material breach of Lyft’s contract with its drivers.
`
`17.
`
`Although Lyft had long had a practice of forcibly logging out drivers who did not
`
`respond to trip requests, indicating that they were not ready to perform work, Lyft had never
`
`previously suspended drivers who were ready, willing, and able to perform trips for Lyft.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 5 of 19
`
`18.
`
`Lyft’s forced logouts of its affiliated drivers amount to nothing less than short-
`
`term layoffs of workers who have come to depend on the availability of full-time work in order
`
`to meet their work expenses, let alone the cost of living in New York City.
`
`19.
`
`The effect of Lyft’s unilateral shift in policies has been to significantly reduce the
`
`working hours of thousands of drivers overnight. These drivers are now earning hundreds of
`
`dollars less per week and may, if Lyft’s breach of contract continues unchecked, cost drivers
`
`thousands of dollars per year in take-home pay.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`20.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper as this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on diversity of
`
`citizenship. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant Lyft is subject to personal jurisdiction in the State of New York as Lyft
`
`does business in New York.
`
`22.
`
`Venue is proper in this District because Defendant conducts business in this Judicial
`
`District, and the acts and/or omissions giving rise to the claims herein alleged took place in this
`
`District.
`
`23.
`
`Further, while Plaintiff is a New York City Lyft driver who did not successfully opt
`
`out of Lyft’s arbitration clause, Plaintiff is exempt from having to arbitrate his claims under the
`
`provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, as he is a transportation worker engaged
`
`in interstate commerce. See, e.g., Singh v. Uber Technologies., Inc., 939 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 2019).
`
`24.
`
`As of 2019, any decision as to whether a class of workers is exempt from the FAA
`
`is for the Court, not an arbitrator, to decide. See, New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532 (2019).
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff MD Islam
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 6 of 19
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff Islam is a resident of Astoria, Queens County, New York, who has been a
`
`professional driver since 2002.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff Islam has worked as a Driver for Lyft since 2014.
`
`Plaintiff is a party to the contracts pursuant to which drivers receive dispatches from
`
`the Lyft app.
`
`28.
`
`Specifically, in the relevant period from June 27, 2019 to the present, Plaintiff Islam
`
`was a party to the February 2018 contract and is a party to the August 2019 contract with Lyft.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Islam has not formally opted out of the arbitration provision of Lyft's
`
`contract.
`
`30.
`
`At all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff Islam was expected to and regularly
`
`did provide services in Interstate Commerce by driving passengers across state lines on a regular
`
`basis.
`
`31. While driving for Lyft, Plaintiff Islam typically crossed state lines in the course of
`
`his work on a weekly basis.
`
`32.
`
`Since January 15, 2020, Plaintiff Islam has performed fewer than 180 rides in a 30
`
`day period.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff Islam has been subject to Lyft's limited-hours restrictions and forced log-
`
`off policies since on or about January 15, 2020, in violation of Lyft's contract with him.
`
`Defendant Lyft, Inc
`
`34.
`
`Lyft, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, which is the corporate parent of the Lyft
`
`subsidiary black car bases, which dispatch trips to drivers in New York City.
`
`35.
`
`Lyft is a party to the contracts pursuant to which drivers receive dispatches from
`
`the Lyft app, which are the main "base agreement" between Lyft and drivers under TLC rules.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 7 of 19
`
`36.
`
`Specifically, in the relevant period from June 27, 2019 to the present, Lyft required
`
`all New York City drivers to enter a February 2018 agreement, or an August 2019 agreement to
`
`drive for Lyft in New York City.
`
`COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Lyft Has Structured Its New York City Business Such That Plaintiff And All New
`York City-based Lyft Drivers Are Engaged In Interstate Commerce
`
`
`
`37.
`
`Lyft's New York City business model is structured to provide not only
`
`transportation within New York City and New York State, but interstate transportation as well;
`
`Lyft's policies contemplate the regular performance of interstate transportation work by its drivers.
`
`38.
`
`Lyft has consistently advised drivers and passengers of its policy that a “$20
`
`surcharge will be added to all trips between New York and New Jersey.”
`
`39.
`
`Lyft has consistently advertised to passengers on its rider-facing New York City
`
`website that Lyft provides service from New York City to “EWR,” that is, Newark International
`
`Airport.
`
`40.
`
`The same website also advises passengers that “Return tolls will be added to
`
`westbound trips through or across the Holland Tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel, George Washington
`
`Bridge, Goethals Bridge, and Outerbridge Crossing.” All of these bridges and tunnels link New
`
`Jersey to New York.
`
`41.
`
`New York City-based Lyft drivers routinely transport passengers between New
`
`York and New Jersey.
`
`42.
`
`Specifically, in entering ride locations, passengers may choose any destination
`
`within 100 miles of their pick-up location, irrespective of the state of the destination.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 8 of 19
`
`43.
`
`Lyft's policies state that trips originating in New York City may extend as far as
`
`100 miles.
`
`44.
`
`Thus, New York City-based Lyft drivers may be dispatched to locations in New
`
`Jersey, Connecticut, or Pennsylvania.
`
`45.
`
`Once a driver receives a dispatch, Lyft specifies the pick-up location, but withholds
`
`the drop-off location until the passenger has entered the vehicle.
`
`46.
`
`Drivers are instructed that they will be penalized should they not accept a Lyft
`
`dispatch. If a driver refuses a trip after learning of the destination, Lyft considers such a refusal to
`
`be a “cancellation.”
`
`47.
`
`Lyft has maintained a deactivation policy, that stated that drivers’ accounts could
`
`be deactivated for excessive cancellations. Specifically, a tutorial provided for Lyft drivers states
`
`“If you cancel 15 or more of your last 100 accepted rides, not including passenger no-shows, your
`
`driver account could be at risk.” Accordingly, no driver had the option to exclude performing
`
`interstate trips, without risking further exposure to deactivation.
`
`48.
`
`Thus, acceptance of interstate trips was a term and condition of Plaintiff's access to
`
`Lyft dispatches.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff Islam was required to perform interstate trips as a term and condition of
`
`his contract with Lyft.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff Islam did in fact perform interstate trips.
`
`The Lyft February 2018 and August 2019 Driver Contracts
`
`51.
`
`In order to receive dispatches from Lyft, Plaintiff was required to electronically
`
`“accept” Lyft’s “Terms of Service” (hereafter “Contract”) on his phone to use the Lyft app.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 9 of 19
`
`52.
`
`In order to receive dispatches after Lyft issued a new or amended version of the
`
`Contract, a driver was required to agree to the new contract, which appeared on his or her phone,
`
`before any new dispatch could come in.
`
`53.
`
`All drivers were bound by contract with Lyft to provide driving services in
`
`exchange for payment by Lyft for those services.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`In the relevant period, Plaintiff and class members were bound by two contracts.
`
`As of June 27, 2019 at the start of the violation period Plaintiff, and all New York
`
`City Lyft drivers were bound by a contract dated February 8, 2018 ("the February 2018 Contract").
`
`56.
`
`Thereafter, in October 2019, Plaintiff and all New York City Lyft drivers were
`
`bound by a contract dated August 26, 2019 ("the August 2019 Contract"), though the contract was
`
`not introduced until October of that year.
`
`57.
`
`At present, the Lyft website shows a November 2019 contract, however drivers
`
`have not been required to accept such contract to access the Lyft app.
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff anticipates he will be required to accept the November 2019 contract in
`
`order to continue driving for Lyft.
`
`59.
`
`The contracts frame the relationship between Lyft and the drivers as one between
`
`drivers seeking to perform "Rideshare Services," and Lyft which, expressly disclaiming its status
`
`as a transportation company, claims only that it is providing drivers access to a “marketplace”
`
`where they can offer their services as drivers.
`
`60. While the Contracts set forth various reasons for which Lyft may terminate the
`
`contract with a driver, or may “deactivate” a driver's account, for cause, nothing in the Contracts
`
`empowers Lyft to affirmatively limit a driver's access to the Lyft app when the driver's account
`
`status remains active.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 10 of 19
`
`61.
`
`Indeed, all of the above contracts, including those Plaintiff is a party to, contain
`
`identical language regarding the drivers' right to access the Lyft app, and Lyft's policies
`
`surrounding temporary and permanent suspensions of drivers’ accounts.
`
`62.
`
`Significantly, the Contracts explicitly disclaim any control by Lyft over when and
`
`where drivers may access the Uber app to receive dispatches. Section 19 of the Contracts reads,
`
`without ambiguity:
`
`“Lyft does not, and shall not be deemed to direct or control you generally or in your
`performance under this Agreement specifically, including in connection with your
`provision of Rideshare Services …You retain the sole right to determine when, where and
`for how long you will utilize the Lyft Platform.” [Section 19, the February 2018, August
`2019 and November 2019 contracts]
`Lyft Violates Its Contracts With Drivers By Restricting Driver Work Hours and Forcibly
`Logging Off Drivers From the Lyft App
`
`
`63.
`
`Beginning on or about June 27, 2019, in violation of Section 19 of the Contracts,
`
`which unambiguously state the drivers will have sole discretion over when and where to provide
`
`their services as drivers, Lyft began restricting drivers’ access to the Lyft app.
`
`64.
`
`Specifically in June 2019, Lyft announced to its New York City drivers that it
`
`would eliminate drivers' sole discretion over where and when they log in to driver for Lyft, and
`
`would begin restricting the ability of drivers with active driver accounts to access the Lyft app.
`
`65.
`
`On or about June 24, 2019, Lyft emailed drivers informing of its new policies to
`
`limit driver access to the Lyft app, which Lyft claimed it was making in response to new TLC
`
`rules.
`
`66.
`
`In a blog post on the Lyft website titled, “What the New TLC Rules Mean for You,”
`
`Lyft wrote that “Starting June 27, the number of drivers who can be on the road at any given time
`
`will be determined by passenger demand and spots may be limited. This means if there’s low
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 11 of 19
`
`demand, you may have to drive to busier areas or wait to go online and drive once demand picks
`
`back up.” The blog post provided “tips” for how to be allowed onto the Lyft platform and stay on,
`
`instructing drivers to move to busier areas, but noting that, “if you haven't gotten a ride in 30
`
`minutes, we may have to take you offline.”
`
`67.
`
`The post also noted that drivers of wheelchair-accessible vehicles, drivers who
`
`lease their vehicles from Lyft, and drivers who maintain a 90% trip acceptance rate and had
`
`performed 100 trips within the previous 30 days would be exempt from Lyft’s forced log-off
`
`policy. Notably, Lyft provided drivers with only three (3) days advance notice of this policy,
`
`depriving drivers of sufficient advance notice to allow them to conform their behavior to the new
`
`policies, and avoid being subject to restricted working hours.
`
`68.
`
`On or about October 1, 2019, Lyft increased the trip number threshold for
`
`exempting drivers from the forced log-off policy from 100 trips within the previous 30 days, to
`
`180 trips within the previous 30 days. This change became effective on October 4, again depriving
`
`drivers of sufficient notice to allow them to attempt to qualify for the new threshold and avoid
`
`being subject to restricted working hours.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`The above policies amount to admissions of Lyft’s breach of contract.
`
`Nor did these policy announcements amount to amendment of the contract.
`
`Indeed, Section 19 of the contracts remained the same in the contracts issued before
`
`and after the policy announcement.
`
`72.
`
`Further, Lyft, as the owner of the Lyft FHV bases, is subject to compliance with all
`
`TLC rules regulating bases and base owner conduct.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 12 of 19
`
`73.
`
`Since in or about January 2019, TLC rules have set forth certain minimum
`
`requirements for contracts made between For-Hire Vehicle bases and their drivers, which TLC
`
`rules refer to as "base agreements."
`
`74.
`
`Specifically, 35 R.C.N.Y. § 59B-18(f)(1), reads, in relevant part: “Agreements
`
`Must Include All Terms. Any terms or conditions a Driver or Vehicle Owner must accept or agree
`
`to in order to receive a dispatch from a For-Hire Base … must be included in a Base Agreement
`
`that complies with the provisions of this subdivision."
`
`75.
`
`Accordingly, under TLC rules, Lyft would be required to list any conditions drivers
`
`would be required to meet in order to receive a dispatch; yet, in violation of TLC rules, nowhere
`
`does the Contract impose the types of conditions and restrictions that limit drivers’ access to the
`
`app that the Lyft has recently imposed.
`
`76.
`
`As a result of this illegal policy, drivers who would often receive work in the outer
`
`boroughs to start their day, now find themselves unable to log on until they reach Manhattan.
`
`77.
`
`Drivers who take a break in the middle of the shift to eat, re-fuel, or relieve
`
`themselves, have found themselves unable to log back in to the Lyft app after even brief log-offs,
`
`even in the middle of Manhattan.
`
`78.
`
`As a result of Lyft’s breach of contract, many Lyft drivers have found themselves
`
`unable to work as many hours as they previously had, and their weekly Lyft earnings have
`
`decreased significantly.
`
`79.
`
`As a result of Lyft’s breach of contract, Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons,
`
`putative Class Members, have been harmed in the amount of all income from rides they would
`
`have received were they not denied access to the app.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 13 of 19
`
`80.
`
`Specifically, Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons, putative Class Members,
`
`have been harmed at least in the amount of the number of hours they were subject to the logout
`
`multiplied by the TLC driver minimum pay rate of $17.22 per hour.
`
`INDIVIDUAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Plaintiff Was/Is A Party The Relevant Contracts
`
`81. With his income as a driver, Plaintiff Islam supports himself, his wife, and his two
`
`minor children, and additionally, sends money back home.
`
`82.
`
`In 2014, Plaintiff Islam invested into the purchase of a new Toyota Camry to use
`
`as a for-hire vehicle. While the vehicle is now paid off, he continues to pay $308 per month to
`
`maintain a commercial insurance policy for the vehicle.
`
`83.
`
`Plaintiff has driven for Lyft and been a party to various driver contracts with Lyft,
`
`from his first day driving for Lyft to the present.
`
`84.
`
`85.
`
`86.
`
`Plaintiff was a party to the February 2018 contract with Lyft, supra.
`
` Plaintiff is a party to the August 2019 contract.
`
`Before Lyft began restricting Plaintiff Islam's access to the Lyft app, in violation of
`
`its contract, Mr. Islam worked a full-time schedule driving for Lyft.
`
`87.
`
`For example, during the 10-week from October 7, 2019 to December 15, 2019,
`
`prior to Lyft subjecting Islam to forced log-offs and restricted access to the Lyft app, Islam
`
`averaged 93.8 trips per week, 39.51 online hours per week, and earned $1349.82 in average net
`
`pay from Lyft every week.
`
`88.
`
`Because, throughout this period, Islam had worked enough to average 180 trips
`
`over the previous 30-day period, the implementation of Lyft's forced log-off policy did not initially
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 14 of 19
`
`affect Islam's ability access to the Lyft app and to work as much and whenever he wanted to, as
`
`guaranteed by the Agreements.
`
`January 20, 2020 To The Present: Plaintiff Has Performed Fewer Than 180 Trips Over 30
`Days And Has Thus Been Subject To Lyft’s Unlawful Log Off Policy In Violation Of Lyft’s
`Contract With Him
`89.
`On December 25, 2019, Islam left New York to visit his mother in Bangladesh,
`
`who had become seriously ill.
`
`90.
`
`Islam returned to New York on January 19, 2020 to find that, as a result of leaving
`
`New York to visit his mother, he was no longer able to access the Lyft app and work his previous
`
`full-time schedule. Because he did not perform 180 trips in the previous 30 days, Lyft had
`
`restricted his access to the app.
`
`91.
`
`On or about January 20, 2020, Plaintiff Islam emailed Lyft's customer support to
`
`explain why he had left New York, and asking Lyft to restore his access to the app.
`
`92.
`
`A Lyft support representative replied by merely providing information about Lyft’s
`
`forced log-off policy.
`
`93.
`
`During this period, although Islam tried to work as much as he had previously, he
`
`could only get roughly half as many online hours as he previously had, and as a result, he earned
`
`significantly less take-home pay.
`
`94.
`
`Islam would open his app to go to work and find that he could not go online in
`
`Astoria, where he lives. The app would suggest that he go to busier areas to find passengers.
`
`95.
`
`Following this suggestion, Islam would go to midtown Manhattan to find
`
`passengers. Depending on the time of day, sometimes Lyft would allow him to log on, but
`
`sometimes it would not.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 15 of 19
`
`96.
`
`On those occasions when he was able to be logged in, Islam was not able to work
`
`for very long. A typical scenario would involve Mr. Islam performing several trips in Manhattan,
`
`for example, and then after completing a trip from Manhattan to the South Bronx, Lyft would
`
`forcibly log Mr. Islam off, and leave him unable to receive more trips.
`
`97.
`
`Plaintiff Islam would try to work weekdays from 5-7 a.m., and often from 11pm -
`
`5 am on Friday and Saturday nights, but would typically find himself logged off an hour or so after
`
`those periods had ended.
`
`98.
`
`On February 12, 2020, after learning that his sister in Bangladesh had fallen into a
`
`coma, Mr. Islam returned to Bangladesh.
`
`99. Mr. Islam's sister passed away on February 29, 2020.
`
`100. Mr. Islam flew back to New York on March 3, 2020 the day after his sister's funeral.
`
`101. Since returning to New York, Plaintiff Islam remained subject to Lyft’s forced log-
`
`off policy until ridership declined precipitously in line with the COVID-19 pandemic, and Mr.
`
`Islam could no longer work.
`
`Plaintiff Islam Was And Is Harmed As A Result Of the Lyft’s Breach Of Its Contract With
`Him
`
`102. During the first three complete work weeks since becoming subject to Lyft’s forced
`
`log-off policy, from January 20, 2020 to February 9, 2020 Islam averaged only 45.33 trips per
`
`week, 19.78 online hours per week, and earned only $612.80 in average net pay from Lyft per
`
`week.
`
`103. During this period, although Islam tried to work as much as he had previously, he
`
`was only able to be online for roughly 50% of his usual hours, perform less than half as many trips
`
`as he usually did, leaving him to earn only 45.4% of his typical earnings compared to the 10-week
`
`period prior to Lyft's imposition of forced logoffs.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 16 of 19
`
`104.
`
`In the period since March 3, 2020, when Plaintiff returned to work after attending
`
`his sister's funeral, his earnings continued to be lower than they were when Lyft was not restricting
`
`his access to the app, in violation of the August 2019 contract, and he became unable to earn
`
`enough income to support himself and his family.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS PURSUANT TO FRCP 23
`
`105. Although Named Plaintiff has not opted out of the arbitration provision of the
`
`employment contract, the arbitration agreement is not binding on New York City Lyft drivers,
`
`regardless of whether or not they opted out of arbitration, as New York City Lyft drivers are
`
`transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce and thus exempt from section 1 of the
`
`Federal Arbitration Act.
`
`106. Named Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of himself and a class of Lyft drivers who,
`
`1.) Are party to a Lyft contract; and 2.) drove for Lyft in New York City at any time between June
`
`27, 2019 and the date of this filing ("the Relevant Period"); and 3.) at any time in the relevant
`
`period attempted to log on to the Lyft app and were rejected pursuant to the forced logoff policy.
`
`107. Plaintiff's claims are brought pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.) so as to remedy violations of the contract discussed above.
`
`108. Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly
`
`situated in New York, hereafter, the “class action Plaintiffs” as defined in paragraph 106, supra.
`
`109. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of New York City Lyft drivers who have been
`
`subject to the contract violations set forth in this complaint for the period of in or about June 27,
`
`2018 to the present (hereafter the "class action period.").
`
`110. The class action Plaintiffs, at various times, electronically accepted Lyft's contract
`
`in order to receive Lyft dispatches.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 17 of 19
`
`111. The class action Plaintiffs are readily ascertainable since the identity, addresses,
`
`and time and pay records of each such Class member are determinable from the Defendant's
`
`records. Notice can be provided pursuant to Rule 23 of the Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`112.
`
`Joinder of all Class members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, there
`
`are at least 30,000 or more Lyft drivers in New York City who could potentially be in the Class.
`
`113. The representative Plaintiff's claims are typical of those claims that could be alleged
`
`by any member of the class. The relief sought by the Plaintiff is typical of the relief that would be
`
`sought by each member of the Class in separate actions. All class action Plaintiffs were subject to
`
`forceable policies and practices alleged herein. The aforesaid policies and practices of Defendants
`
`similarly affect all of the representative Plaintiffs and the class action Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs and
`
`members of the class they seek to represent have sustained similar injuries and damages as a result
`
`of Defendant's unlawful acts and/or omissions.
`
`114. The representative Plaintiff is fit to fairly and competently represent and protect the
`
`interests of the class action Plaintiffs. For the purposes of this action, the named Plaintiff has no
`
`interest that conflicts with those of the class action Plaintiffs. Representative Plaintiff's attorneys
`
`have considerable experience with class action litigation.
`
`115. Disposition of the claims as a class action is superior to any other available means
`
`of adjudication for the foregoing reasons:
`
`116. Class members are workers who individually lack the necessary resources to
`
`effectively litigate against a corporate defendant;
`
`117. A class action is in the interests of judicial economy as individual litigation would
`
`result in the expenditure of considerable public resources;
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03004-RA Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 18 of 19
`
`118.
`
`Injuries suffered by each Class member individually are small in comparison to the
`
`cost of individual litigation, dissuading and precluding redress of their claims;
`
`119. The claims shared by Class members involve important public policy interests that
`
`would otherwise go unaddressed due to the aforesaid barriers to and limitations of individual
`
`litigation, and;
`
`120. A class action will provide anonymity for those Class members whose fear of
`
`retaliation would otherwise dissuade them from asserting their rights as many Class members are
`
`still driving by for the Defendants.
`
`121. Numerous questions of law and fact are common to all Class members and
`
`predominate over those of any individual Class member, including: Whether Defendant’s forced
`
`log off policy announced on June 27, 2018 breached its contract with drivers.
`
`CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
`(By Plaintiff and All Similarly Situated)
`Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and incorporates each and every preceding paragraph as
`
`122.
`
`if set forth fully herein.
`
`123.
`
`Defendants' action and omissions, as alleged above, constitute independent and
`
`separate breaches of the contract entered into by Plaintiff. These violations include
`
`Plaintiff'