Skip to main content

In re Uber Technologies Wage and Hour Cases

Cal. Ct. App.September 29, 2023No. A166355
Mixed ResultUber Technologies

Case Details

Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Appeal in wage and hour collective action

Related Laws

Claim Types

Worker Misclassification

Outcome

Appellate court decision regarding collective wage and hour claims against Uber Technologies involving driver classification and compensation disputes.

Similar Rulings

Gupte
D. Conn.Jun 2025
Dismissed
Artur Zawada v. Uber Technologies
6th CircuitMar 2018
Unresolvable
Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP Mari Newman and Towards Justice v. BKP, Inc. Ella Bliss Beauty Bar LLC Ella
Colo.Sep 2023
Settlement
Paul
Unknown CourtMar 1899

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.</p> <p>This action was commenced in a justice’s court in Saline Township, Saline County, Arkansas, by Charles Paul against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas, and owning and operating a railroad within that State, to recover $21.80 due him as a laborer, and a penalty of $1.25 per day for failure to pay him what was due him when he was discharged. The case, was carried by appeal to the Circuit Court of. Saline County and there tried de novo. Defendant demurred to so much of the complaint as sought. to recover the penalty on the ground that the act of the general assembly of Arkansas entitled “ An act to provide for the protection of servants and employés of railroads,” approved March 25,. ,1889, Acts Ark. 1889, 76, which provided therefor, was in violation of articles five and fourteen of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and also in violation of the constitution of the State of Arkansas. The demurrer was overruled, and defendant answered, setting up certain matters not material here, and reiterating in its third paragraph the objection that the act was unconstitutional and void. To this paragraph plaintiff demurred, and the demurrer was sustainéd. The case was then heard by the court, the parties, having. waived a trial by jury, and the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum claimed and the penalty at the rate of daily wages from the daté of the discharge until the date of the commencement of the suit, and entered judgment accordingly. Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas, which affirmed the judgment, 64 Arkansas, 83, and this writ of error was then brought. .</p> <p>The act-in question is as follows:</p> <p>“ SectioN 1. Whenever any railroad company or any company, corporation or person engaged in the business of operating or constructing any railroa

Plaintiff Win
Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.
MASSJun 2013
Mixed Result

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.