## Facts

- California Uber drivers, led by Douglas O’Connor, sued Uber Technologies, Inc. alleging misclassification as independent contractors.
- Plaintiffs sought California Labor Code remedies, including gratuities protections (Cal. Lab. Code § 351) and expense reimbursement (Cal. Lab. Code § 2802).
- Uber asserted it was a technology platform and argued drivers were independent contractors as a matter of law.
- Uber moved for summary judgment, asking the court to decide classification without a trial.
- Evidence in the record included Uber’s control over fares and payment flow, driver policies addressing ride conduct, and performance monitoring through star ratings with possible deactivation.

## Issues

1. Whether Uber drivers could be classified as independent contractors as a matter of law at summary judgment under California’s employee-classification standards.
2. Whether disputed facts about Uber’s right to control drivers and other classification factors required jury determination.

## Decision

- The district court denied Uber’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held drivers were presumptive employees because they performed services for Uber’s benefit.
- The court held employee-versus-independent-contractor status under California law is a mixed question of law and fact typically resolved by a jury.
- The court found material factual disputes concerning Uber’s right to control the manner and means of drivers’ work and other relevant factors, making summary judgment improper.

## Legal Principles

- Under California law, a person who renders service for another is presumptively an employee; the hiring entity bears the burden of rebutting that presumption.
- California’s Borello framework centers on the putative employer’s right to control the manner and means of work, with additional secondary factors informing classification.
- Where evidence on control and related factors is materially disputed, employment classification ordinarily cannot be resolved on summary judgment and must proceed to factfinding.

## Conclusion

The court refused to decide Uber driver classification at summary judgment, treating drivers as presumptive employees and holding that disputed evidence under the Borello control-focused test required jury resolution.


O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 82 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2015)