All

Posted on

Inferior access to passengers who use wheelchairs (New York City)

A July 2017 complaint, filed by the nonprofit legal group Disability Rights Advocates in New York, criticized Uber’s failure to include wheelchair-accessible vehicles in its standard UberX fleet, claiming that 99.9% of Uber’s vehicles were inaccessible to people with mobility disabilities, in violation of New York’s anti-discrimination laws.

The lawsuit alleged that Uber riders who need wheelchair-accessible vehicles face significantly longer wait times than other passengers, and that at some periods and in some places, no wheelchair-accessible vehicles are available at all.

The lawsuit further alleged that passengers attempting to use Uber’s accessible service face extended wait times, or are denied access to
the service altogether, which the plaintiffs said reveals that the accessible service was “window-dressing designed to avoid government regulation and legal requirements” and insufficient under law.

Posted on

Overcharged commissions to New York drivers

For New York drivers, Uber took its commission based on gross fares including state taxes, rather than net fares after deduction of taxes. The New York Times estimated that this overcharged New York drivers by more than $200 million — and increased Uber’s revenue by the same amount.

A subsequent New York Times analysis compared Uber’s tax and billing practices across jurisdictions, examining receipts to assess irregularities and comparing changing contract language to understand Uber’s shifting approach.

Posted on

Inconsistent positions as to driver employment status

Uber largely argues that drivers are not employees, allowing Uber to avoid paying payroll tax, providing workers’ compensation insurance, reimbursing employment-related expenses, and more.

But when Uber was sued for sending unsolicited text messages recruiting drivers, without recipients’ consent, Uber defended the messages on the grounds that they were offers of employment, which under federal law can be sent without a recipient’s consent.

Posted on

Reduced tax obligations by classifying drivers as contractors, not employees

Uber classified drivers as contractors, not employees.  As a result, the company avoided withholding income tax from driver earnings, and avoided paying the employer’s share of payroll taxes.

The correctness of this classification is disputed via ongoing litigation in numerous jurisdictions. On July 12, 2017, Uber drivers in North Carolina won preliminary class-action status in a case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Posted on

Drivers not permitted to make workers’ compensation claims

Because Uber argues that its drivers are not employees, the company does not allow them to make workers’ compensation claims for injuries that occur in the workplace, i.e. while driving.

In a May 2017 addition, Uber began to offer an optional insurance program to drivers.  Nonetheless, Uber’s policy is importantly inferior to workers’ compensation.  1) Uber’s policy comes at at an additional cost that drivers must pay, whereas workers’ compensation is automatically provided by employers to employees at no charge. 2) Uber’s optional coverage maxes out at half of a driver’s average weekly earnings, whereas many states require that workers’ compensation pay out more (two thirds of salary in California, Massachusetts, and New York). 3) Uber’s policy requires drivers to submit disputes to arbitration, whereas workers’ compensation disputes are overseen by public boards. 4) Uber’s policy covers only total disabilities that prevent a driver from working at all, whereas workers’ compensation covers partial disabilities.

Posted on

Inferior access to passengers who use wheelchairs (Washington DC)

A June 2017 complaint, filed by the Equal Rights Center in federal court in Washington DC, criticized Uber’s failure to include wheelchair-accessible vehicles in its standard UberX fleet, alleging that this violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The complaint criticized Uber Access, Uber’s wheelchair-capable service, as limited to a subset of markets as well as offering inferior service with approximately double the wait time and approximately double the fare.  The complaint alleged that not one vehicle in Uber’s 30,000-vehicle fleet in Washington DC is capable of transporting a passenger who uses a non-folding wheelchair.

litigation docket

Posted on

Uber partner dealers charged vehicle lease and surcharges far in excess of vehicle value

Quartz reports surprisingly high fees from the “partner dealers” who lease cars to Uber drivers.  For example, one driver was quoted $495 per week (including insurance but not repairs or maintenance), totaling $78,705 over three years, plus a $3,000 “service fee” — for a car that cost $45,292 to buy outright, new.

Another driver was asked to pay $68 per week for a service that Quartz describes as “proper licensing with the city’s taxi commission” — yet the actual fee was $68 for two years, making this a $3500+ fee per year.  (Surprised by this high fee, a taxi and limousine commission spokesperson commented “wow.”)

Uber allowed partner dealers to withdraw fees directly from drivers’ payments from Uber, or from drivers’ bank accounts if their Uber earnings were insufficient.

Proudly powered by WordPress