Aquino v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
671 F.Supp.3d 338
S.D.N.Y.2023Background
- Plaintiff Anthony Aquino, an Uber driver who opted out of Uber’s arbitration clause, sued Uber, Rasier LLC, and Schleuder LLC alleging misclassification as an independent contractor and minimum‑wage violations under the FLSA and NYLL.
- The Platform Access Agreement (PAA) governs driver access to the Uber Driver App; it sets rules on insurance, vehicle maintenance, login control, fares, and automatic logouts after 12 hours.
- Aquino worked three days in April 2022, logging into the app for 3 hours 48 minutes total, receiving $46.88 in fares, and alleging monthly ride‑share insurance ($119) and maintenance ($100) expenses. He did not allege miles driven for paid trips on two of the three days.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(2) for failure to state claims and lack of personal jurisdiction over out‑of‑state plaintiffs.
- The court held Aquino plausibly alleged employee status but dismissed his minimum‑wage claims (FLSA and NYLL) because he failed to plead compensable waiting time or sufficient facts (miles/time/allocation) to show unreimbursed expenses reduced earnings below minimum wage; jurisdictional issues were not reached because out‑of‑state claims were withdrawn.
- Dismissal was granted without prejudice; plaintiff may seek to amend per the court’s earlier order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employee status / misclassification | Aquino: Uber controls access, fares, rules, and can deactivate — drivers are employees | Uber: Drivers are independent contractors; the PAA and practical control do not show employer status | Court: Allegations sufficiently plausible to survive 12(b)(6); employee status was adequately pleaded at pleading stage |
| Compensable waiting time | Aquino: 3h48m logged into Driver App was working time and thus compensable | Uber: Time logged in is waiting to be engaged; driver free to use time and accept other platforms | Court: Pleading too sparse to show drivers were “engaged to wait”; waiting‑time claim dismissed |
| Unreimbursed business expenses reducing pay below minimum wage | Aquino: Monthly insurance and maintenance should be deducted from pay for the three days, dropping pay below minimum | Uber: Expenses must be apportioned to business mileage/time; plaintiff failed to plead miles or actual business use; commuting not deductible | Court: Plaintiff failed to allege miles/time or a legally supported allocation method; business‑expense theory inadequately pleaded; minimum‑wage claims dismissed |
| Personal jurisdiction over out‑of‑state plaintiffs | Aquino originally sought class/collective including out‑of‑state drivers | Uber: Court lacks specific/general jurisdiction over non‑NY drivers | Court: Did not resolve jurisdictional challenge because plaintiff withdrew out‑of‑state claims and wage claims were dismissed on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must contain more than conclusory allegations)
- Falk v. Brennan, 414 U.S. 190 (broad construction of "employer" under FLSA)
- Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs. Ltd., 172 F.3d 132 (economic‑reality test for employer status)
- Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054 (factors for employee vs. independent contractor)
- Bynog v. Cipriani Grp., Inc., 1 N.Y.3d 193 (NY test focuses on degree of control over means/results)
- Skidmore v. Swift, 323 U.S. 134 (waiting time doctrine: engaged to wait vs. waiting to be engaged)
- Razak v. Uber Techs., Inc., 951 F.3d 137 (material fact issues on employee status for Uber drivers)
- Saleem v. Corp. Transp. Grp., Ltd., 854 F.3d 131 (summary‑judgment context on misclassification for drivers)