## Facts

- Philadelphia-area drivers provided UberBLACK limousine services using Uber’s driver app and brought a putative class action seeking minimum wage and overtime.
- To drive UberBLACK, drivers formed independent transportation companies (ITCs) that entered Technology Services Agreements with Uber governing app access, service requirements, and financial terms.
- Drivers could choose when and how much to work and were not contractually barred from working for other companies.
- Uber imposed performance and operational constraints, including minimum rider-rating requirements, limits on consecutive driving hours, and potential temporary “offline” status after repeated trip rejections.
- A substantial portion of drivers used Uber’s automobile insurance, and drivers generally bore operating expenses; some could hire others to drive for their ITCs.
- Plaintiffs asserted that time spent logged into the app should be treated as compensable working time.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the FLSA’s economic-reality test, the record permitted a determination as a matter of law that UberBLACK drivers were independent contractors, making summary judgment for Uber proper.
2. Whether genuine disputes of material fact on the employee-status question required vacatur and remand, including as to parallel Pennsylvania wage-law claims (PMWA and WPCL).

## Decision

- The Third Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Uber and remanded.
- The court held that, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in plaintiffs’ favor, a reasonable factfinder could classify the drivers as employees under the FLSA.
- Because the federal classification issue could not be resolved on summary judgment, summary judgment on the Pennsylvania wage-law claims was also vacated.

## Legal Principles

- FLSA employee status turns on “economic reality,” assessed through a multi-factor, totality-of-circumstances inquiry focusing on dependence rather than contractual labels.
- The commonly applied factors include: (1) right to control work, (2) opportunity for profit or loss, (3) worker’s investment and use of helpers, (4) special skill, (5) permanence of the relationship, and (6) whether the work is integral to the business.
- No single factor is dispositive; the inquiry is fact-intensive and often involves mixed questions of law and fact.
- On summary judgment, courts must view the record in the nonmovant’s favor and may not resolve disputed facts or draw inferences for the movant.
- Formal business structures (such as contracting through an ITC) do not control the FLSA analysis if the practical relationship shows potential economic dependence.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that disputed facts about Uber’s control and the drivers’ economic dependence precluded summary judgment on employee status, requiring the case to be remanded for further proceedings on the FLSA and related Pennsylvania wage claims.


Razak v. Uber Techs., Inc., 951 F.3d 137 (3d Cir. 2020)