No, a judge can't decide this for sure; it's a question for a jury. The court said it's a confusing situation. On one hand, drivers seem like employees because Lyft has so many specific rules and can fire them for not following those rules. On the other hand, drivers seem like their own bosses because they use their own cars and have total freedom to decide when and how much to work. Because you could make a good argument for both sides, the judge can't just declare a winner. A jury needs to hear all the facts and decide which side has the better case.

The judge can't decide on his own if Lyft drivers are employees or independent contractors. The test for deciding this under California law looks at many factors that point in different directions for Lyft drivers. A reasonable jury could decide the drivers are employees or they could decide the drivers are contractors based on the evidence. So the judge can't grant summary judgment and the case has to go to trial.

The main factor about how much control Lyft has favors treating drivers as employees because Lyft sets a lot of rules drivers have to follow once they accept a ride request, like rules about car cleanliness, GPS use, driver behavior, and Lyft can punish or fire drivers based on ratings and cancellations. But drivers can choose when and how much to work, which is more like a contractor.

The other less important factors also point both ways. Some, like the fact that the drivers use their own cars and both sides agreeing they are contractors, favor contractor status. Others, like driving being a key part of Lyft's business and not needing special skills, favor employee status.

The old California test doesn't work well for new app jobs like Lyft in the modern 'gig economy.' The law probably needs to be updated. But for now, the jury will have to look at all the evidence and factors and decide if Lyft drivers seem more like employees or more like contractors overall. The evidence isn't so clear that the judge can decide on his own.

—case prior to settlement, “the jury... will be handed a square peg and asked to choose between two round holes

—holding that whether Lyft drivers are employees or independent contractors is for a "jur [y] to decide" under California law

As Judge Chhabria noted when analyzing the claims of Lyft drivers, "The test the California courts have developed over the 20th Century for classifying workers isn't very helpful in addressing this 21st Century problem."

—as modified on denial of reh'g (Nov. 20, 2020), review denied (Feb. 10, 2021) summarized the series of cases that "have considered contentions that ride-sharing companies such as Lyft and Uber are in the business solely of creating technological platforms, not of transporting passengers, and have dismissed them out of hand

—recognized that in the analysis of whether Lyft drivers are employees or independent contractors, the jury “will be handed a square peg and asked to choose between two round holes.”

Whether a worker is classified as an employee or an independent contractor has great consequences. California law gives many benefits and protections to employees; independent contractors get virtually none

As an employee, appellant was entitled to the benefit of wage laws requiring an employer to promptly pay all wages due, and prohibiting the employer from deducting unauthorized expenses from the employee's wages, deducting for debts due the employer, or recouping advances absent the parties' express agreement

That effort has thus far been unsuccessful in the courts, a string of defeats and stalemates explained both by the widespread use of forced arbitration by these companies and by the previous lack of clarity in the law.

This is the best interpretation of the ordinance even without applying any presumptions in favor of the plaintiffs, but it becomes even more compelling when one considers the guidepost that ambiguities in the scope and application of laws protecting workers in California should be resolved in favor of the worker.

This ruling presumes that the reader is familiar with the background of the case, which is discussed more fully in the Court's prior rulings.

No. The classification of Lyft drivers as either 'employees' or 'independent contractors' cannot be decided as a matter of law because reasonable jurors could reach either conclusion. The court applied California's multi-factor test, established in *S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations*, where the primary factor is the principal's right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the work. Several factors point toward an employment relationship, including Lyft's detailed instructions on driver conduct, its monitoring of performance metrics like acceptance rates and passenger ratings, and, most significantly, its express contractual right to terminate drivers at will for any reason or no reason. Conversely, other factors support an independent contractor classification, such as the drivers' complete discretion over their work schedules, their use of personal vehicles, and their responsibility for all operating expenses. Because these numerous factors point in 'decidedly different directions,' weighing the evidence is a task for the jury, precluding summary judgment for either party.

No. The classification of Lyft drivers under California law cannot be determined as a matter of law because the multifactorial test for employee versus independent contractor status does not yield a clear answer. The factors considered in the test point in different directions, and a reasonable jury could conclude either status is appropriate. Therefore, the cross-motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case must proceed to trial. 

The primary factor, the right to control, tends to favor employee status because Lyft retains significant control over drivers once they accept ride requests, including rules about driver conduct, the use of GPS, the cleanliness and type of the vehicles, and the ability to penalize or terminate drivers based on customer ratings and acceptance/cancellation rates. However, drivers have flexibility in when and how much to work. 

The secondary factors also point in both directions. Some, like the parties' intent and the drivers providing their own vehicles, favor independent contractor status. Others, like the work being integral to Lyft's business and not requiring special skills, favor employee status. On balance, the factors do not decisively point to either classification.

Given the outmoded nature of the California test and the difficulty applying it to the modern gig economy, absent legislative intervention, the jury will have to weigh the competing factors and evidence to decide whether Lyft drivers are employees or independent contractors. The evidence is not so one-sided to rule as a matter of law.

Cotter v. Lyft, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot