Case 1:21-cv-07113-JMF Document 1 Filed 08/23/21 Page 1 of 12
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`___________________________________
`
`IRWAN CHANDRA, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIV. A. NO. _________________
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`Lyft is a car service, which engages thousands of drivers across the state
`
`of New York who can be hailed and dispatched through a mobile phone application to
`
`transport riders. Lyft is based in San Francisco, California, and it does business across
`
`the United States, including extensively throughout New York.
`
`2.
`
`As described further below, Lyft has misclassified its drivers, including
`
`Plaintiff Irwan Chandra, as independent contractors when they should be classified
`
`under New York law as employees. Based on the drivers’ misclassification as
`
`independent contractors, Lyft has unlawfully required drivers 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 New York Labor Law, Article 19, §§
`
`193 and 198-b. Lyft has also failed to guarantee and pay its drivers minimum wage for
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`___________________________________
`
`IRWAN CHANDRA, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIV. A. NO. _________________
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`Lyft is a car service, which engages thousands of drivers across the state
`
`of New York who can be hailed and dispatched through a mobile phone application to
`
`transport riders. Lyft is based in San Francisco, California, and it does business across
`
`the United States, including extensively throughout New York.
`
`2.
`
`As described further below, Lyft has misclassified its drivers, including
`
`Plaintiff Irwan Chandra, as independent contractors when they should be classified
`
`under New York law as employees. Based on the drivers’ misclassification as
`
`independent contractors, Lyft has unlawfully required drivers 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 New York Labor Law, Article 19, §§
`
`193 and 198-b. Lyft has also failed to guarantee and pay its drivers minimum wage for
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-07113-JMF Document 1 Filed 08/23/21 Page 2 of 12
`
`all hours worked and it has failed to pay overtime premiums for hours worked in excess
`
`of forty hours per week in violation of NYLL Article 6 §§ 190 et seq., Article 19 §§ 650 et
`
`seq., and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. Lyft has
`
`also failed to comply with notice and recordkeeping requirements in violation of NYLL,
`
`Article 6, 195(1) and failed to provide accurate wage statements in violation of NYLL,
`
`Article 6, 195(3).
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of himself and all other similarly
`
`situated drivers pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. He seeks recovery of damages for
`
`himself and the class, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, requiring Lyft to
`
`reclassify its drivers as employees in New York.
`
`II.
`
`PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Irwan Chandra is an adult resident of New York City, New York,
`
`where he worked as a Lyft driver from January 23, 2018, until August 28, 2019.
`
`5.
`
`The above-named plaintiff has brought this action on his own behalf and
`
`on behalf of all others similarly situated, namely all other individuals who have worked
`
`as Lyft drivers in New York.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
`
`San Francisco, California.
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`7.
`
`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 Lyft is a
`
`California citizen, incorporated in Delaware and the putative plaintiff class reside
`
`primarily in New York; there are more than 100 putative class members; and the
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-07113-JMF Document 1 Filed 08/23/21 Page 3 of 12
`
`amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The putative class, including Plaintiff
`
`Chandra, have worked throughout the state of New York, including in New York City.
`
`IV.
`
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`8.
`
`Lyft is a San Francisco-based car service that provides transportation
`
`service in cities throughout the country, including in New York, via an on-demand
`
`dispatch system.
`
`9.
`
`Lyft offers customers the ability to hail a car service driver on a mobile
`
`phone application.
`
`10. Although classified as independent contractors, Lyft drivers are employees
`
`under New York law.
`
`11.
`
`Lyft requires its drivers to abide by a litany of policies and rules designed
`
`to control the drivers’ work performance. Lyft retains the right to terminate drivers at
`
`any time in its discretion. Lyft may terminate a driver if the driver behaves in a way that
`
`Lyft believes is inappropriate or has violated one of Lyft’s rules or standards. Drivers are
`
`also subject to termination based on Lyft’s system of using customer rating feedback;
`
`drivers can be terminated in Lyft’s discretion if Lyft deems their customer ratings to be
`
`inadequate.
`
`12. Drivers perform a service in the usual course of Lyft’s business, since Lyft
`
`is a car service that provides transportation to its customers, and drivers such as
`
`Plaintiff perform that transportation service. Lyft holds itself out as a transportation
`
`service, and it generates its revenue primarily from customers paying for the very rides
`
`that its drivers perform. Without drivers to provide rides for Lyft’s customers, Lyft would
`
`not exist.
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-07113-JMF Document 1 Filed 08/23/21 Page 4 of 12
`
`13. When driving for Lyft, Lyft drivers are not engaged in their own
`
`transportation business. Instead, when driving Lyft customers, drivers wear the “hat” of
`
`Lyft. Customers cannot request specific Lyft drivers; instead, Lyft assigns particular
`
`rides to drivers.
`
`14.
`
`Lyft does not require drivers to possess any skill above and beyond that
`
`necessary to obtain a normal driver’s license.
`
`15. Drivers’ tenure with Lyft is for an indefinite amount of time.
`
`16.
`
`Lyft provides the drivers with the primary instrumentality with which they
`
`can perform services for Lyft because Lyft only derives a benefit from the drivers’ labor
`
`when they use Lyft’s software.
`
`17.
`
`Lyft sets the rate of pay for drivers’ services and changes the rate of pay
`
`in its sole discretion. If a rider does not pay, it is Lyft—not drivers—who bear the loss.
`
`18. At times, Lyft has deducted money from drivers’ fares to cover the cost of
`
`a Lyft-issued iPhone, which drivers use to run Lyft’s software and accept ride requests.
`
`At other times, drivers have been required to provide, and pay for, their own phones.
`
`19.
`
`Lyft tracks drivers’ location in real time through the Lyft app and provides
`
`customers with an estimated time of arrival.
`
`20.
`
`If a driver can no longer carry out a ride after accepting the job, Lyft, rather
`
`than the driver, finds a replacement.
`
`21. Drivers must undergo background checks as a prerequisite to driving for
`
`Lyft.
`
`22. Drivers’ vehicles must meet Lyft’s quality standards, which it determines
`
`and may change at any time at its sole discretion.
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-07113-JMF Document 1 Filed 08/23/21 Page 5 of 12
`
`23.
`
`Lyft monitors drivers’ performance and may suspend or terminate drivers
`
`who do not maintain high customer satisfaction ratings or who engage in other conduct
`
`that Lyft may determine constitutes grounds for suspension or termination.
`
`24.
`
`Lyft drivers are engaged in interstate commerce. At times, drivers
`
`transport passengers across state lines. Furthermore, drivers are engaged in interstate
`
`commerce as they routinely transport passengers who are within the flow of interstate
`
`commerce, traveling to or from destinations out of state, including arriving at or leaving
`
`train stations, bus stations, and airports.
`
`25.
`
`Lyft does not reimburse drivers for any necessary expenses they incur
`
`while working for Lyft, including, but not limited to the cost of acquiring and maintaining
`
`their vehicles, gas, insurance (all of which can be reasonably estimated based upon the
`
`IRS vehicle reimbursement rate), as well as phone and data expenses for running the
`
`Lyft application. Drivers incur these costs as a necessary expenditure to work for Lyft,
`
`and their payment of these costs are effectively improper deductions from the drivers’
`
`wages. See NYLL, Article 19, § 193 (3)(a) (“No employer shall make any charge
`
`against wages, or require an employee to make any payment by separate transaction
`
`unless such charge or payment is permitted as a deduction from wages….”); NYLL,
`
`Article 19, § 198-b (“it shall be unlawful for any person, either for that person or any
`
`other person, to request, demand, or receive, either before or after such employee is
`
`engaged, a return, donation or contribution of any part or all of said employee’s wages,
`
`salary, supplements, or other thing of value, upon the statement, representation, or
`
`understanding that failure to comply with such request or demand will prevent such
`
`employee from procuring or retaining employment.”). On average, Mr. Chandra incurred
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-07113-JMF Document 1 Filed 08/23/21 Page 6 of 12
`
`an average of approximately $610 in business expenses each week that he drove for
`
`Lyft.
`
`26.
`
`Lyft has violated NYLL, Article 19, §§ 650, et seq., and the supporting
`
`New York State Department of Labor Regulations by failing to assure that drivers make
`
`the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked, particularly after accounting for their
`
`expenses and other deductions taken from their pay (and also not counting tips they
`
`receive). The hours that drivers such as Plaintiff Chandra have worked include hours
`
`spent transporting passengers, driving to pick up passengers, and driving between rides
`
`while awaiting the next ride. On average, Mr. Chandra worked 28.8 hours per week and
`
`made $695 per week (including tips) before taking into account business expenses that
`
`averaged to $610 per week.
`
`27.
`
`Lyft has also violated NYLL, Article 19, §§ 650, et seq., and the supporting
`
`New York State Department of Labor Regulations by failing to pay its drivers the
`
`appropriate overtime premium of time-and-a-half their regular rate of pay for all overtime
`
`hours worked beyond forty per week. Mr. Chandra has worked more than forty hours
`
`per week at various times since he began driving for Lyft and was never paid the
`
`appropriate premium for hours worked beyond forty per week, including 51 hours during
`
`the week of May 20-26, 2019; 42 hours during the week of May 27-June 02, 2019; 49
`
`hours during the week of June 3-9, 2019; 50 hours during the week of July 8-14, 2019;
`
`70 hours during the week of July 15-21, 2019; 58 hours during the week of July 22-28,
`
`2019; 44 hours during the week of July 29-August 4, 2019, 49 hours during the week of
`
`July 30-August 5, 2018; 53 hours during the week of August 5-11, 2019; 56 hours
`
`during the week of August 12-18, 2019; and 63 hours during the week of August 19-25,
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-07113-JMF Document 1 Filed 08/23/21 Page 7 of 12
`
`2019. The hours that drivers such as Mr. Chandra has worked include hours spent
`
`transporting passengers, driving to pick up passengers, and driving between rides while
`
`awaiting the next ride.
`
`V.
`
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`28.
`
`The class representative, Plaintiff Chandra, has brought this action as a
`
`class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
`
`Lyft drivers who have worked for Lyft in New York.
`
`29.
`
`The class representative and other class members have uniformly been
`
`misclassified as independent contractors.
`
`30.
`
`The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all class
`
`members is impracticable.
`
`31. Common questions of law and fact regarding Lyft’s 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 class members have been required to work under Lyft’s direction
`
`and control;
`
`b. Whether the work performed by class members—providing transportation
`
`service to customers—is within Lyft’s usual course of business, and
`
`whether such service is fully integrated into Lyft’s business;
`
`c. Whether class members are engaged in an independently established
`
`business or occupation while they are transporting Lyft customers;
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-07113-JMF Document 1 Filed 08/23/21 Page 8 of 12
`
`d. Whether class members have been required to bear the expenses of
`
`their employment, such as expenses for their vehicles, gas, smart phone,
`
`and other expenses;
`
`32.
`
`The class representative is a member of the class, who suffered damages
`
`as a result of Lyft’s conduct and actions alleged herein.
`
`33.
`
`The class representative’s claims are typical of the claims of the class and
`
`he has the same interests as the other members of the class.
`
`34.
`
`The class representative will fairly and adequately represent and protect
`
`the interests of the class. The class representative has retained able counsel
`
`experienced in class action litigation and particularly in the allegations included here.
`
`The interests of the class representative are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, the
`
`interests of the other class members.
`
`35.
`
`The questions of law and fact common to the members of the class
`
`predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and
`
`factual issues relating to liability and damages.
`
`36. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
`
`efficient adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all class members is
`
`impractical. Moreover, since the damages suffered by individual members of the class
`
`may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation makes it
`
`practically impossible for the members of the class individually to redress the wrongs
`
`done to them. The class is readily definable and prosecution of this action as a class
`
`action will eliminate the possibility of repetitive litigation. There will be no difficulty in the
`
`management of this action as a class action.
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-07113-JMF Document 1 Filed 08/23/21 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`
`Failure to Reimburse Expenses
`
`As set forth above, Lyft has misclassified its drivers in New York as independent
`contractors, in violation of NYLL, Article 6 §§ 190 et seq., NYLL, Article 19, §§ 650, et
`seq., and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. As a result
`of this misclassification, drivers have improperly been required to bear the expenses of
`their employment (such as expenses for maintaining or leasing their vehicles,
`insurance, gas, phone data charges, and other expenses), in violation of NYLL, Article
`19, §§ 193 and 198-b, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
`Regulations.
`
`
`COUNT II
`
`Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
`
`By failing to ensure that Lyft drivers receive the full New York minimum wage for
`all hours worked, Lyft has violated NYLL, Article 19, §§ 650, et seq., and the supporting
`New York State Department of Labor Regulations.
`
`
`COUNT III
`
`Failure to Pay Overtime
`
`By failing to pay Lyft drivers time-and-a-half for all hours worked in excess of
`forty per week, Lyft has violated NYLL, Article 19, §§ 650, et seq., and the supporting
`New York State Department of Labor Regulations.
`
`
`COUNT IV
`
`
`
`
`
`Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-07113-JMF Document 1 Filed 08/23/21 Page 10 of 12
`
`Lyft has violated NYLL, Article 6, 195(3), and the supporting New York State
`Department of Labor Regulations by failing to provide Lyft drivers with accurate
`statements listing each of the following: the dates of work covered by that payment of
`wages; name of employee; name of employer; address and phone number of employer;
`rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary,
`piece, commission, or other; gross wages; deductions; allowances, if any, claimed as
`part of the minimum wage; net wages; the regular hourly rate or rates of pay; the
`overtime rate or rates of pay; the number of regular hours worked; and the number of
`overtime hours worked.
`
`
`COUNT V
`
`Failure to Comply with Notice and Recordkeeping Requirements
`
`
`
`Lyft has violated NYLL, Article 6, 195(1),and the supporting New York State
`Department of Labor Regulations by failing to provide Lyft drivers with a written notice
`containing: the rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift,
`day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other; allowances, if any, claimed as part of
`the minimum wage, including tip, meal, or lodging allowances; the regular pay day
`designated by the employer; the name of the employer; any “doing business as" names
`used by the employer; the physical address of the employer's main office orprincipal
`place of business, and a mailing address if different; and the telephone number of the
`employer.
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`A declaratory judgment that the Plaintiffs and class members are
`
`employees, not independent contractors, under New York state law;
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-07113-JMF Document 1 Filed 08/23/21 Page 11 of 12
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Injunctive relief ordering Lyft to comply with New York law;
`
`Certification of a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;
`
`An order requiring Lyft to provide a complete and accurate accounting of
`
`all the wages and reimbursement of expenses to which Plaintiffs and members of the
`
`class are entitled;
`
`e.
`
`An award of damages for all wages, reimbursement of expenses, and
`
`liquidated damages that are due to Plaintiffs and members of the class because of their
`
`misclassification as independent contractors under New York law;
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`An award of prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR § 5001(a);
`
`Attorneys’ fees and costs; and
`
`Such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`IRWAN CHANDRA, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`By his attorneys,
`_/s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan_______________
`Shannon Liss-Riordan, NY Bar No. 2971927
`Anne Kramer, pro hac vice anticipated
`LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
`729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 994-5800
`Email: sliss@llrlaw.com, akramer@llrlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 23, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-07113-JMF Document 1 Filed 08/23/21 Page 12 of 12
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that on August 23, 2021, she filed and
`
`
`
`served the foregoing document via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notice
`
`of the filing to all counsel of record. Parties may access the filing through the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF system
`
`
`
`_/s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan_______________
`Shannon Liss-Riordan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
