## Facts

- Darrin E. McGillis drove using Uber’s platform, which connects drivers with riders seeking transportation through smartphone applications.
- McGillis agreed to a written contract that expressly disclaimed an employer–employee relationship and described drivers as independent contractors.
- McGillis used his own vehicle and paid the expenses associated with operating it.
- He set his own hours, could choose where to work, and could decide whether to work at all.
- Uber paid drivers a percentage of the fare charged to passengers, with payments made weekly by direct deposit.
- Uber provided insurance related to commercial operation of a vehicle, but did not provide medical insurance, paid vacation, or retirement benefits.
- Uber issued drivers IRS Form 1099 (rather than a W-2).
- McGillis also provided similar driving services for a competitor platform, Lyft.
- Uber revoked McGillis’s access to its technology based on alleged violations of Uber’s user privacy policy.
- After losing access, McGillis filed a claim for Florida reemployment assistance benefits.
- The Florida Department of Revenue initially determined that McGillis was an Uber employee.
- Uber challenged that determination; after an evidentiary hearing, a DEO special deputy recommended reversal, finding McGillis was an independent contractor and thus ineligible for benefits.
- The Executive Director of the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) adopted the special deputy’s recommended order and overruled McGillis’s exceptions.
- McGillis appealed the final administrative order to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether McGillis performed services for Uber as an “employee” under section 443.1216, Florida Statutes (2015), or as an independent contractor, for purposes of reemployment assistance eligibility.
2. Whether the DEO’s final order classifying McGillis as an independent contractor was supported by competent, substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standard.

## Decision

- The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the DEO’s final order.
- The court held that McGillis served as an independent contractor, not an employee, for purposes of Florida reemployment assistance.
- Because McGillis was not an employee, he was not entitled to reemployment assistance benefits.

## Legal Principles

- For reemployment assistance, Florida applies a common-law employee/independent-contractor analysis centered on the putative employer’s right to control the manner and means of the work, not merely the end result.
- Contract terms labeling a worker an independent contractor are not alone dispositive, but they carry weight when the real-world working relationship matches the contract’s characterization.
- Factors pointing away from employee status include worker-supplied tools and equipment, freedom to set one’s schedule, discretion to accept or reject work, the ability to perform similar work for competitors, and the absence of traditional employee benefits.
- Payment structure and tax treatment (such as receiving a share of customer fares and being issued a Form 1099) may support independent-contractor status when consistent with the overall relationship.
- On review of a final agency order, appellate courts uphold factual findings supported by competent, substantial evidence and will not reweigh evidence considered by the agency.

## Conclusion

The Third District affirmed the DEO’s denial of reemployment assistance because Uber’s contract with McGillis expressly disclaimed employment and the evidence showed McGillis retained substantial control over when, where, and whether he drove, used his own vehicle, could drive for competitors, and received no traditional employee benefits, making him an independent contractor under section 443.1216.


McGillis v. Department of Economic Opportunity, 210 So. 3d 220 (2017)