This article was initially published by CalMatters. Subscribe to their newsletters.
A lawsuit filed on Monday claims that Uber has not established a fair appeals process for drivers removed from the app, thereby breaching California law regarding the classification of app-based drivers as independent contractors.
In 2020, voters passed Proposition 22, an initiative exempting Uber and similar platforms from certain labor laws, allowing them to classify their workers as contractors instead of employees. This measure promised drivers an appeals process.
The group Rideshare Drivers United, representing around 20,000 drivers in California, announced on Monday that Uber’s failure to uphold the commitments of Prop. 22 means it should not be allowed to claim its drivers are independent contractors.
“Uber does not satisfy the prerequisites to benefit from Prop. 22,” stated Shannon Liss-Riordan, a Massachusetts-based attorney with a history of challenging Uber and other gig companies, who is representing the California drivers.
Many drivers who have been deactivated report difficulties in appealing their cases. Initially, they are directed to automated systems and eventually reach agents who appear to follow scripts and may be located overseas. They rarely connect with individuals who can genuinely assist them.
Liss-Riordan mentioned at a San Francisco news conference that she aims to obtain a court ruling declaring that Uber is violating the law, which she believes will aid drivers in their individual arbitration efforts.
“We plan to pursue back pay and other compensation for those who have been unfairly deactivated, along with addressing their rights under the labor code,” she added.
Prop. 22 includes promises of guaranteed minimum earnings of 120% of minimum wage for active ride or delivery time, healthcare stipends for qualifying individuals, accident insurance, and “mandatory contractual rights and appeal processes,” according to the initiative’s text. However, it does not outline specific requirements for the appeals process.
Devins Baker, who has driven for Uber and Lyft in the Bay Area for eight years, was deactivated by Uber just before Christmas in 2024.
He believes Uber removed him after he had to brake suddenly to avoid hitting a pedestrian on the freeway, which caused his seatbelt-less passenger to fall out of his seat. “I don’t know the reason because we are never informed about which passenger complained,” Baker remarked, suggesting that some may report drivers in hopes of receiving free rides from Uber.
Emotionally speaking at the press conference, Baker expressed his struggle to find alternative income sources to avoid homelessness.
Uber spokesperson Ramona Prieto characterized Liss-Riordan as an “opportunistic trial lawyer” in an email to CalMatters, asserting that the company would “contest this publicity stunt in court.” Prieto emphasized that Uber provides a clear appeals process, referencing a blog post from the previous week outlining how drivers can challenge deactivations.
‘It has turned my life upside down’
Another driver, Mirwais Noory from the Bay Area, stated that he was deactivated in November 2024 due to alleged safety issues. He tried to provide Uber with dashcam footage to defend his case, but to no avail.
This deactivation has caused him significant financial strain as he supports four children. He has since found work as a security guard and occasionally drives for Lyft.
“I’m the sole income provider,” Noory shared with CalMatters. “It has turned my life upside down.”
Jason Munderloh, chair of the Bay Area chapter of Rideshare Drivers United, remarked at the news conference: “After deactivation, drivers lose unemployment insurance (as they aren’t considered employees), leading to poverty and desperation.”
“Upon joining RDU, drivers primarily worry about earnings, followed closely by the risk of deactivation,” Nicole Moore, president of Rideshare Drivers United, informed CalMatters before the news conference.
Uber, a multibillion-dollar company headquartered in San Francisco, was the primary supporter of the $205 million Prop. 22 campaign, which also received funding from DoorDash, Lyft, Instacart, and Postmates. Uber spent a total of $59.5 million in cash and in-kind contributions, while Postmates—acquired by Uber in 2020—invested $13.3 million.
The lawsuit filed on Monday in San Francisco Superior Court adds to the numerous legal challenges against Prop. 22, which CalMatters has reported lacks a dedicated state agency for enforcement. The California Supreme Court upheld the gig-work law in 2024.
The plaintiffs also claim Uber deactivates drivers for reasons not outlined in its “Platform Access Agreement” and that drivers lack sufficient information about earnings to verify they receive 120% of the minimum wage.
Additionally, Uber is facing a lawsuit from the state Justice Department and the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego regarding thousands of wage-theft claims that predate Prop. 22. A trial deadline for this lawsuit and a parallel case against Lyft is set for December 2027.
CalMatters is a nonpartisan and nonprofit news organization dedicated to investigating and explaining issues affecting the quality of life in California while holding leaders accountable.
