Documents and a 2017 deposition related to an Atlanta civil suit, Jessicka Harris v. Uber, viewed by The Washington Post offer a rare glimpse at Uber’s strategies for using drivers’ status as independent contractors as a legal shield. Asked in a document to “admit or deny that Uber is in the business of providing transportation,” the ride-hailing company’s attorneys are steadfast: “denied.”
Over the course of a nearly three-hour deposition in the Harris case, Uber executive Nicholas Valentino, then an operations manager for Atlanta, repeatedly corrected the plaintiff’s attorney when he referred to the contractors as “drivers.”
“They are not Uber drivers,” Valentino said. “They’re independent, third-party transportation providers.” He repeated the claim no fewer than 16 times, to the attorney’s apparent consternation.
“If you are going to keep saying they are not drivers, we are just going to be fussing about that all afternoon,” said the attorney, Michael Todd Wheeles.
“That’s okay,” Valentino said.
Uber faces many lawsuits, over issues ranging from fender benders to wage disputes to more-serious incidents. Harris sued Uber and driver Robert Ferguson, alleging that she nearly lost her leg after being struck by Ferguson, who she claimed veered off the road.
At stake for Uber in its many court battles is the potential for millions in new liabilities if its contract drivers are reclassified as employees, and the company is found to bear greater responsibility for their actions.
Many companies rely on contractors and gig workers. But what sets Uber and other ride-hailing companies apart is that its customers spend much more time with the drivers, en route to their destination, compared with, say, food-delivery or dog-walking services. The ratio of contractors to direct employees is high: While Uber has roughly 4 million drivers, the company has 27,000 employees.
In public statements, Uber takes pains to show its collaborative relationship with drivers. Chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi refers to them as “driver partners,” noting in an interview last October that “if you’re going to call your drivers partners, then treat them like partners.” Uber declared 2017 “the year of the driver” before it was embroiled in a series of corporate scandals. The company offered some drivers the chance to buy stock when it went public in May, and it hosts regular forums where drivers can give feedback to executives.
“Drivers are independent contractors,” Uber spokesman Noah Edwardsen said in a statement. “But that has never stopped us from making significant investments in safety. Safety will always be a long-term commitment for Uber and we will continue working to raise the bar to help protect everyone who uses our platform.”
Gig workers earn money by performing tasks such as delivering groceries, ferrying passengers or fetching prepared food — tasks generally arranged by customers through mobile apps. Because they are not full-time employees, they can log in to the app whenever they wish to work, but they also have to pay for things such as fuel and health insurance themselves.
A measure in Uber’s home state that could require it to reclassify drivers as employees, with benefits such as paid sick leave, could also open the company up to new liabilities, according to critics. Uber has pushed back against the measure — set to take effect in January — citing what it says may be the impact to drivers’ flexible work schedule.
“Liability is one of the big unspoken-about issues here,” said Lorena Gonzalez (D), a California state assemblywoman who crafted the bill, known as AB5, that would make many gig workers employees. “We want to ensure there’s responsibility at the end of the day and that they are not just passing that along to someone else."
Edwardsen said that “liability for safety incidents has simply never been part of [Uber’s] arguments or strategy around AB5” and that “suggesting otherwise is wrong.”
Uber declined to comment on the Harris case, which it settled out of court, or any other litigation. Attorneys for Harris also declined to comment, as did the driver’s attorneys. Valentino, the Uber executive who was deposed in the case, declined through an Uber spokesman to be interviewed. Harris and Ferguson did not respond to requests for comment.
Uber drivers’ employment status has been challenged in multiple lawsuits, but Uber has avoided having to broadly recognize its gig workers as employees. Uber tends to favor settling individual cases out of court rather than letting them go to trial, say attorneys who have brought suits against the company.
In materials related to the Harris case, sealed after the matter was privately settled, Uber attorneys and executives contend that the company is nothing more than a marketplace that happens to be used for arranging transportation. And its chief legal officer, Tony West, said last month that Uber’s business is “serving as a technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces.”
But the company is more involved than many online marketplaces, such as e-commerce sites, including providing driving directions to drivers, setting fare rates and mandating punctuality and car type, among other criteria.
The distinction in the Harris case — and many others like it — is crucial for Uber. The company argues that because they are contractors, drivers and their behavior ultimately are not its responsibility.
It has made similar arguments in other lawsuits. In a case in San Francisco alleging an Uber driver made sexual comments to a 16-year-old passenger, settled in December, Uber’s attorneys said that “the partner driver was an independent contractor responsible for his own means and methods” and that Uber is “a technology company, not a transportation company."
In a case underway in Walton County, Fla., where a driver purportedly drove a passenger to his home and raped her, Uber asserts that the driver “was at all times … an independent, third-party transportation provider” and that Uber “does not and did not employ” the driver and “never had an agency, employment, partnership, joint venture or joint enterprise relationship with him.”
Courts have generally sided with Uber and other companies reliant on gig workers that have made similar arguments.
The Post reported last month that Uber’s Special Investigations Unit, which it turns to when trips go awry, is designed primarily to shelter the company from legal responsibility and quietly resolve serious allegations to avoid press or regulatory scrutiny. Uber has contested that, saying the unit’s role is to “provide specialized customer support to riders and drivers dealing with very serious real-life situations.”
Online marketplaces such as Uber and Lyft, e-commerce companies, food delivery companies and lodging providers have successfully argued that as middlemen they should not be held responsible for the goods and services they help arrange. And courts have generally sided with them, citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields sites from legal liability for user content by treating them as distributors rather than publishers.
Gonzalez, in an interview, said she is also considering a handful of new bills for the next legislative session that would address various aspects of the gig economy, including insurance considerations.
Seattle University law professor Charlotte Garden, who has studied gig-economy labor, said the California measure could be copied in other states, increasing potential costs to Uber. She said that may require Uber to find new ways to describe its business.
“It’s part of Uber’s playbook to use colorful language to obscure the true nature of their business,” Garden said.
In the Harris case, Uber’s Valentino was asked whether he knew how many drivers Uber had in the state of Georgia. “Zero would be how many Uber drivers, because that’s not what they are,” he said. “But, if you are asking about independent third-party transportation providers — not trying to be difficult — I would say, no, I don’t know the answer.”
“Isn’t it true that Uber drivers like Mr. Ferguson are commanded to transport the Uber customer directly to their specified destination?” asked Wheeles, the attorney, with the firm Morris Haynes in Birmingham, Ala.