Cotter v. Lyft, Inc.
60 F. Supp. 3d 1067
| N.D. Cal. | 2015Background
- Lyft drivers in California are challenging their classification as independent contractors, arguing they should be treated as employees under California law; the plaintiffs seek minimum wage, expense reimbursement, and other employee protections; Lyft controls many aspects of how drivers operate and the app-based platform facilitates rides; the court must determine whether the drivers are employees or independent contractors as a matter of law or fact; summary judgment is inappropriate because California’s multi-factor test allows different inferences; the case proceeded on cross-motions for summary judgment for Cotter and Maciel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lyft drivers are employees or independent contractors under California law | Cotter/Maciel argue they are employees | Lyft argues they are independent contractors | Trial necessary; mixed indicators prevent as-a-matter-of-law ruling |
| Whether the right to control is decisive in classifying drivers | Control supports employee status | Control is not fully exercised; drivers’ flexibility favors contractor status | Right to control weighs against summary judgment for either side |
| Whether the secondary factors consistently favor employee or independent-contractor status | Secondary factors point to employee status | Secondary factors point to independent-contractor status or are equivocal | Secondary factors do not resolve classification; jury must weigh all factors |
| Whether, given California law, the case should proceed as a class action for the driver class | Drivers statewide should be included | Class action viability depends on individual determinations | Question not resolved here; focus is on Cotter and Maciel classification; jury trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- Narayan v. EGL, Inc., 616 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2010) (multifactor test; employee status generally preferred; burden on employer to prove IC status)
- Borello & Smith, 256 Cal.Rptr. 543; 769 P.2d 543 (Cal. 1980s) (primary test: right to control and secondary factors; liberally construed protective statutes)
- Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 332; 327 P.3d 165 (Cal. 2014) (right to discharge without cause indicates control; mixed questions of law/fact)
- Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2014) (employee status under strong evidence of control; not controlling here due to different facts)
- Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., 754 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2014) (employee status where arrow points strongly toward one side; summary judgment inapplicable here)
- JKH Enterprises v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (employee status upheld for similar delivery drivers despite independent features)
- Air Couriers International v. Employment Development Department, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 38 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (employee status upheld where drivers control aspects of work)