Search form

Gig-Economy Delivery Couriers are Not Employees, New York Court Rules, Reverses Unemployment Board

By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris and Godfre Orion Blackman
  • June 29, 2018

A delivery courier fired by app-based food delivery service Postmates Inc. is an independent contractor, not an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, of the New York Supreme Court, has ruled. Matter of the Claim of Luis A. Vega, No. 525233 (June 21, 2018). The case is one of many disputes across the country over the status of workers in the gig economy.

Luis Vega was a delivery courier for Postmates, which is known for its ability to deliver from hard-to-reach restaurants around Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens. Vega applied for unemployment insurance benefits after Postmates terminated its relationship with him based upon “alleged negative consumer feedback and/or fraudulent activity.” The Unemployment Appeal Board, reversing a decision by an Administrative Law Judge, found that an employer-employee relationship existed between Postmates and Vega. Contesting the Board’s decision, Vega filed suit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.

The court, by a 3-2 vote, reversed the Board. The case turned on how much control the company had over the delivery couriers. The court found the company did not exert enough control over Vega or those similarly situated to be held liable for unemployment insurance contributions.

The majority found significant that, in order to work as a courier for Postmates, Vega and others similarly situated “need only download Postmates’ application software platform and provide his or her name, telephone number, Social Security number and driver’s license number; there is no application and no interview.” Further, they “were not required to report to any supervisor,” “they unilaterally retain[ed] the unfettered discretion as to whether to ever log on to Postmates’ platform and actually work,” and were “free to work as much or little as he or she want[ed] — there is no set work schedule.”

The panel concluded, “[W]hile proof was submitted with respect to Postmates’ incidental control over the couriers, the fact that Postmates determines the fee to be charged, determines the rate to be paid, tracks the subject deliveries in real time and handles customer complaints … does not constitute substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship.”

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding this case and other developments.

©2018 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

December 3, 2019

Virginia Task Force Releases Recommendations to Address Worker Misclassification

December 3, 2019

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s Inter-Agency Taskforce on Worker Misclassification and Payroll Fraud has offered 11 recommendations in its report on employee misclassification. In August 2019, the Governor reconstituted a taskforce charged with providing recommendations on how to “measure and combat misclassification in Virginia.”... Read More

November 25, 2019

Fluctuating Workweek Pay Method Not Available in Pennsylvania, State Supreme Court Holds

November 25, 2019

In a long-awaited decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has concluded that the fluctuating workweek (FWW) pay method is not a proper method of overtime pay calculation under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA). Chevalier v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., 2019 Pa. LEXIS 6521 (Nov. 20, 2019). As a result, the Court affirmed the... Read More

November 6, 2019

Labor Department Proposes Changes to Clarify Use of FLSA’s ‘Fluctuating Workweek’ Pay Method

November 6, 2019

Persistent confusion over the Department of Labor’s (DOL) “fluctuating workweek” (FWW) pay method to satisfy employers’ obligation to pay overtime has deterred many from using it. Now, the DOL has proposed changes to clarify the pay method. Under DOL regulations on the FWW pay method, if certain conditions are met, an employer may pay... Read More