Aquino v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Anthony Aquino sued Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser, LLC, and Schleuder LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal wage-and-hour law, and New York Labor Law. He alleged that Uber misclassified him as an independent contractor and failed to pay minimum wage after accounting for required but unreimbursed business expenses. He sought unpaid wages and expenses for himself and for a proposed group of New York Uber drivers who had successfully opted out of arbitration.

Aquino moved for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. Conditional certification is an early case-management decision that permits notice to potentially similar workers and allows them to join the federal wage claim. The court explained that a plaintiff must make a modest factual showing that the plaintiff and potential participants were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law.

Facts Revealed During Discovery

The court had previously found that Aquino’s amended allegations plausibly suggested that he might not have received minimum wage if he were legally considered an employee and if his waiting time were compensable. Discovery produced additional information that raised questions about both his wage claim and federal jurisdiction.

The discovery showed that Aquino drove passengers on only April 19, 2022. He was logged into the Uber application for 48 minutes, completed two passenger rides covering approximately 15 miles, spent about 34 minutes driving, and received $17.32. The court calculated that deducting mileage expenses under Aquino’s proposed theories would still leave him above the applicable federal minimum wage.

The court also noted that Aquino completed four Uber Eats deliveries on the other two days at issue, received 17 ride or delivery requests over the three days, and declined 11 of them. It further noted that expenses described in the amended complaint were paid by his mother, and that Aquino was unsure whether he had repaid her. His attorney stated that she had not obtained documents supporting the claimed expenses or repayment.

Aquino had no personal knowledge of how other drivers used their waiting time, and he submitted no declaration from himself or another Uber driver supporting the proposed collective. Uber provided a sworn response stating that 43 New York drivers during the relevant period had successfully opted out of arbitration. The court stated that, if that figure were accepted, jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act might be lacking, and Aquino’s attorney conceded that his individual damages were below $75,000 for ordinary diversity jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that conditional certification is not mandatory and should be used as a case-management tool when it would promote an efficient resolution of common issues. Because substantial discovery had occurred, the court considered whether sending court-authorized notice would be efficient and appropriate. The court emphasized that it could not resolve factual disputes, decide ultimate merits issues, or make credibility determinations at this stage.

The court expressed serious concerns that Aquino might not have a viable FLSA claim. It also noted the possible lack of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. Based on the information presented, the court found that Aquino had not made the required modest factual showing and that conditional certification would not be an efficient or appropriate case-management tool.

Disposition and Next Steps

The court denied without prejudice the motion for conditional certification. The opinion did not decide the merits of Aquino’s individual wage claims or enter judgment on them. It ordered the parties to complete discovery on those claims by August 30, 2024. It set September 13, 2024, for Uber’s summary-judgment motion, September 27, 2024, for Aquino’s opposition, and October 11, 2024, for Uber’s reply.