
Please try another search
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Lyft Inc (NASDAQ:LYFT) was sued on Friday by a former driver who accused the ride-sharing company of failing to provide required paid sick leave to drivers in Washington, D.C., a policy she said could fuel the spread of the coronavirus.
Cassandra Osvatics, of Bowie, Maryland, accused Lyft of subjecting current and former drivers to a "Hobbesian choice" between having to risk their livelihoods by staying home when sick, or "risk their lives (and the lives of their passengers)" by working through their illnesses.
Underlying the proposed class action is a belief that Lyft drivers qualify as employees, entitling them in the nation's capital to about seven paid sick days annually based on 2,000 hours worked.
Lyft and larger rival Uber Technologies (NYSE:UBER) Inc have long contended their drivers are independent contractors, and therefore not owed benefits available to employees.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.
In a statement, San Francisco-based Lyft said it is financially supporting drivers who contract the COVID-19 disease, and helping drivers obtain federal relief including paid sick leave.
"Forced reclassification would jeopardize access to thousands of dollars in federal funds at the worst possible time," it said.
Christopher McNerney, a lawyer for Osvatics, said experts believe paid sick leave reduces the spread of illnesses, including when drivers and passengers carry them home.
"This is a national issue, because ride-share companies are not providing sick leave anywhere," he said. "You want drivers to stay home when they're sick, so when you hop in a Lyft car you won't get sick."
Many ride-sharing employment disputes end up in arbitration, but McNerney said they belong in court because drivers engage in interstate commerce by ferrying passengers across state lines.
In January 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court said a federal arbitration law did not require transportation workers, including independent contractors, engaged in interstate commerce to arbitrate their claims.
The case is Osvatics v Lyft Inc, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 20-01426.
By Karl Plume and Rod Nickel (Reuters) - Eric Broten had planned to sow about 5,000 acres of corn this year on his farm in North Dakota, but persistent springtime rains limited...
By Senad Karaahmetovic Shares of Nike (NYSE:NKE) are down over 2% in pre-open Tuesday after the sportswear retailer reported results for its fiscal fourth quarter. Revenue came...
By Joice Alves, Emma-Victoria Farr and Sinead Cruise LONDON (Reuters) - European listed companies have not been this cheap for more than a decade, yet for private equity firms...
Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?
By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.
%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List
Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.
I feel that this comment is:
Thank You!
Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Add a Comment
We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:
Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.
Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed.
Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.
Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.