Win for ex-Grubhub driver in pending trial may profoundly impact “gig economy”

quote:

---

SAN FRANCISCO—Next month, a federal judge is set to answer a basic question at trial: should a "gig economy" worker be properly classified as an employee? If so, should his work-related expenses be reimbursed, such as mileage?

"This is the first case in California as to how the gig economy works," US Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley said during the Thursday hearing, likely the last hearing before the September 5 bench trial, which is expected to last about a week. Most of the hearing was taken up establishing procedural ground rules and wrapping up loose threads about witness availability, among other items.

This lawsuit just might provide an answer. If Grubhub must treat its drivers as employees, the employees would be entitled to all kinds of benefits, including unemployment, insurance, and reimbursement for various expenses, like gas and employee phone bills. In short, treating workers as employees could cost companies like Grubhub millions of dollars.

The case, known as Lawson v. Grubhub, which was first filed back in 2015, is one of a slew of ongoing cases filed against so-called "gig economy" firms. During the Thursday hearing, the judge said that she had only recently understood that, in this context, "gig" simply was slang for "job" or work. She seemingly was under the impression that it was related to the tech prefix "giga."

For now, cases brought against companies like Uber, Lyft, Handy, Homejoy, and others haven't yet answered the thorny labor question. Either the cases have settled or they haven't progressed far enough.

"This trial is a milestone because similar cases have settled or been dismissed," Michael LeRoy, a labor law professor at the University of Illinois, e-mailed Ars. "When cases settle, the wage-and-hour laws are not applied and interpreted by courts—and therefore, it's hard to say for sure how the law is adapting to the rapid changes in gig work."

---