|
 The settlement, which still must be approved by a San Francisco
federal judge, provides for a $100 million payout to drivers, who
could get as little $12 apiece or as much as a few thousand dollars,
depending on how many miles they drove.
The deal contains a number of caveats and contingencies, however,
such as making $16 million of the payout to drivers dependent on
Uber Technologies Inc's [UBER.UL] future valuation increasing by 150
percent.
Moreover, the settlement's non-monetary provisions are set to expire
in two years, although Uber may choose to keep them in place after
that.
"If there were going to be any teeth to this settlement, (the
expiration) wouldn't be there," said Christian Perea, an Uber driver
and writer for The Rideshare Guy, a popular blog and podcast for
drivers.
The sunset clause is a way for Uber to protect itself from long-term
costs and annoyances, said Jack Schaedel, a labor and employment
attorney at the Dykema law firm, who is not involved in the case. If
any of the concessions ends up "being totally unwieldy and Uber
totally hates it, Uber can get rid of it," he said.
 Uber declined to comment.
A Rideshare Guy post explaining the terms of the settlement drew
more than 100 comments, many of them blasting the proposed deal.
Uber drivers expressed dissatisfaction for a range of reasons,
including that the settlement leaves unresolved the central issue of
whether the law requires that drivers be qualified as employees.
Among the non-monetary provisions of the settlement are a new policy
governing driver termination, including an appeals process for
drivers terminated by Uber, and an agreement that the privately-held
company will clarify that drivers do not automatically receive
gratuities from their fares and allow them to solicit tips.
The company also agreed to assist with the creation of a drivers'
association.
OUTSIDE OBJECTIONS
Lawyers representing Uber drivers in another class-action case have
said in court filings they may object to the settlement because
drivers covered by it would no longer be able to participate in
their case, which challenges Uber's alleged use of credit reports
during driver background checks.
[to top of second column] |
The lawyers also object to Uber's request to omit details from the
settlement that would allow drivers to better evaluate the deal.
The company has asked U.S. District Judge Edward Chen to redact key
figures in court filings, including an estimate of the total
potential value of drivers' legal claims had they won in a jury
trial.
The redacted information "is critically important to any analysis of
whether the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and
reasonable," the lawyers wrote in a court filing.
Uber has said the figures are trade secrets and would damage the
company if made public. In an order on Wednesday, Chen told both
sides to further explain their positions, given the importance of
the information.
In a similar lawsuit against Lyft, Uber's chief competitor, U.S.
District Judge Vince Chhabria denied that company's request to keep
secret similar information. Chhabria ultimately rejected the
proposed $12.25 million settlement offer because it represented only
about 9 percent of the potential value of drivers' claims, a deal
that he said "short-changed" drivers.
While he will gladly cash a settlement check if one comes his way,
driver Perea said the deal with Uber provides little solace.
"We were hoping for a more definitive answer on what the on-demand
economy would look like in the future, and a sense that this whole
new economy that was taking off would work," he said.
A hearing on the deal is scheduled for June.
(Reporting by Heather Somerville and Dan Levine; editing by Sue
Horton and G Crosse)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
