The legal conflict between Uber and its drivers continues.
In an earlier blog post, we discussed the proposed $100 million settlement offer in the class action lawsuit from Uber drivers against the company. The lawsuit claims that Uber is misclassifying its drivers as private contractors instead of employees, which limits their benefits and legal protections. Both sides agreed to the settlement. All that remained in the process was obtaining approval from the federal district courts in both Boston and Oakland.
Uber Almost Got Away Easy…Almost
According to a recent report in the NY Times, Judge Edward M. Chen of the Federal District Court for Northern California overturned the proposed settlement for being unfair and unreasonable. According to the Times, “He also said a small portion of the $100 million amount reflects only 0.1 percent of the potential full verdict value of the case.”
Although $100 million seems like a lot of money, and it is, considering the number of drivers that work for Uber and how much their status as employees could be worth, this settlement offer is surprisingly low.
This appears to be good news for Uber drivers. If the case does go through and they win, it will likely mean substantially more compensation for them. However, if they lose the case, they have already lost the opportunity for the settlement money and they would be left with nothing.
This is just one more example of how important it is in cases like this to work with an attorney who has experience with both employment claims and class action litigation. If your rights are being violated at work in California, call a lawyer you can trust right away.
Quick Navigation
Free Consultation
"*" indicates required fields
Undisclosed
Settlement
TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.
TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.
Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.
TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.
TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.
Class-wide settlement in wage and hour independent contractor misclassification class action on behalf of approximately 1,800 valet employees. Final approval granted.
Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.
$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.
One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.
Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.
Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.
With so many law firms in Southern California and throughout the United States, why choose the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman?
Todd Friedman has been named a 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 Super Lawyer, a distinction of professional achievement and peer recognition.
Speak directly with attorney Todd Friedman about your case. Todd will evaluate your situation and provide prompt and straightforward feedback, saving you time and alleviating uncertainty.
Our firm has earned an A+ Rating from the Better Business Bureau, and has been accredited since 2010.
We are strong advocates for our clients and have the resources necessary to take on powerful opponents and win.
Contact Us
and start fighting back
We offer Free Initial Consultations.
If you have experienced a violation of your rights, call us at 323-690-1688 or fill out the form to the right →
Not ready to commit yet? Check out our Testimonials page and see what others have said about their experience working with us!
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site, including collecting and providing that information to third party vendors to improve our experience, and for marketing purposes. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
