Last December, the Court issued an opinion denying Uber’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The Court held that the allegations sufficiently established an employee-employer relationship between Uber/Gegen and its drivers. The Court then requested that the parties next address what time the drivers should the drivers be compensated for.
On May 26, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of compensable time. Defendants’ brief asserts that, assuming the drivers are employees, they are not entitled to wages for any time spent online. Uber makes two primary arguments: (1) time spent online does not benefit Uber, and (2) Uber does not control how a driver spends his/her time online.
Defendants rely on the testimony of Jordan Holtzman-Conston – Uber’s operations manager in Philadelphia. Mr. Holtzman testified that a driver’s acceptance, cancellation, and rejection rates do not subject the driver to suspension or deactivation from the App. Mr. Holtzman further testified that a driver could cancel a fare and eject a passenger in the middle of the Ben Franklin Bridge without being subject to suspension or deactivation from the App (page 67).
Defendants also submitted a declaration signed by George Clapps, an UberBLACK driver based out of King of Prussia. Prior to being solicited by Uber for testimony, Mr. Clapps was not involved in this litigation, nor was he identified as a potential witness. Mr. Clapps claims that he runs an accounting firm while also spending time online as an UberBLACK driver.
You can access Defendants’ brief and supporting exhibits below.
Read: Jordan Holtzman-Conston Deposition Transcript (Full Transcript)
Read: Jordan Holtzman-Conston Deposition Excerpts (Excerpts Selected by Uber)