Category Archives: employment law

A Glimpse Inside a Strange Corporate Culture

At Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund, employees are expected to familiarize themselves with “a little white book” written by the firm’s founder, Ray Dalio, that’s filled with more than 200 of his “principles” on life and business. Aside from the overtones of Chairman Mao and his little red book, a New York Times story that’s based on documents from a filing against Bridgewater by the National Labor Relations Board and interviews with former employees and people who’ve done work with the $154 billion company suggests there are other odd practices at the Westport, Conn.-based firm.

An employee who filed a complaint earlier this year with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities likened the company in his complaint to a “cauldron of fear and intimidation,” the Times reports. Employees are under constant video surveillance, all meetings are recorded and security guards regularly patrol the building, all as part of an effort to “silence employees who do not fit the Bridgewater mold.”

Employees in some units of the company are required to lock up their personal cell phones when they arrive at work, the sources tell the Times.

Such secrecy and surveillance sounds, and probably is, uncomfortable, but then again hedge funds do tend to be secretive places with enormous amounts of money at stake. But at Bridgewater, the practice appears to have been taken a step further, with meetings between employees and managers not only routinely recorded but also shown to other employees. For example, new are shown videos of confrontations between executives and managers in an effort to “give new employees a taste of Bridgewater’s culture of openly challenging employees and putting them on the spot,” the Times reports. In one such video (which is no longer shown, according to the former employees), a confrontation between executives and a female manager ends up with the woman breaking down and crying. That certainly must have made for a memorable onboarding experience.

The employee who filed the initial complaint with the state commission was Christopher Tarui, an adviser to large institutional investors, who contended that he was sexually harassed by his male supervisor. In his complaint, Tarui said he did not report the conduct “out of fear it would become public because of the firm’s policy of videotaping confrontations between employees.” He ultimately complained to Bridgewater’s HR department, he said, because his supervisor gave him a bad performance rating despite the fact he’d been promoted and given a pay raise a few months earlier. Tarui said in his complaint that the firm promised to investigate, but management tried to persuade him to withdraw his allegations.

Tarui said all of his meetings, including his meeting with HR to complain about the alleged harassment and a subsequent meeting with top executives, were recorded and “widely shared” with managers at Bridgewater, the Times reports.

“The company’s culture ensures that I had no one I could trust to keep my experience confidential,” Tarui said in the complaint.

He filed the complaint in January. However, in March both Tarui and Bridgewater jointly asked to withdraw the complaint from consideration by the Connecticut human rights commission, which halted its investigation. The Times notes that Bridgewater employees (as at many companies) are required to settle disputes through binding arbitration.

However, the Times reports that in a related action, the NLRB later filed a separate complaint against Bridgewater accusing the company of “interfering with, restraining and coercing” Tarui and other employees from exercising their rights through confidentiality agreements that all employees are required to sign once they’re hired. The Times obtained the NLRB complaint and Tarui’s initial complaint through a Freedom of Information Act request. In a statement to the Times, Bridgewater said “we are confident our handling of this claim is consistent with our stated principles and the law.”

Tweet This!

EEOC Steps Up Data Collection on Discrimination

In case you missed this bit of news on your rush out the door to start your weekend last Friday:

In an effort to improve the information available about religious discrimination, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  announced it will implement changes in the collection of demographic data from individuals who file charges with the agency. These changes, the agency says, will allow it to collect more precise data about the religion of the individual alleging discrimination – allowing the EEOC, as well as the public, to recognize and respond to trends in charge data.

Additionally, the EEOC also announced the release of a one-page fact sheet designed to help young workers better understand their rights and responsibilities under the federal employment anti-discrimination laws prohibiting religious discrimination. The fact sheet is available at EEOC’s Youth@Work website, which presents information for teens and other young workers about employment discrimination.

Combating Religious Discrimination Today, a community engagement initiative coordinated by the White House and the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, brought together EEOC and other federal agencies to promote religious freedom, challenge religious discrimination, and enhance efforts to combat religion-based hate violence and crimes. The report from the effort is available at https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/877936/download.

Finally, EEOC plans to improve coordination with the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which enforces the prohibition of religious discrimination in employment by federal contractors and subcontractors. EEOC and OFCCP will work together to develop joint outreach and education efforts concerning discrimination based on religion.

Tweet This!

Don’t Get Blindsided by Family-Leave Laws

Ever wonder what a typical case of family-responsibility discrimination involving elder care might look like? Consider this 538047854 -- elder carescenario laid out in a piece by Tom Spiggle that posted on the Huffington Post in June:

“You have an elderly parent who suffers from Alzheimer’s. He requires continuous care. You have worked at the same job for five years with a strong, positive work history. To better care for your father, you move him out of assisted living into your house. A paid caregiver takes care of him during the day, but leaves at 6, which means that you have to be home then.

“Your performance at work remains strong, but you are no longer able to take part in the informal after-work get-together frequently arranged by your boss. After missing these for a month, your boss stops by your office to ask why. You tell him. He responds ‘How long will this go on?’ You tell him maybe years. After this, things change at work. For no apparent reason, your boss begins to criticize your work. At one point, HR puts you on a performance-improvement plan.

“Although you do everything they ask and more, nothing seems good enough. One day, your father falls at your house, breaking an arm. You have to leave work early to get to the hospital and miss work the next day. You call HR, letting them know what happened and put in for [Family and Medical Leave Act] leave to cover the absence. When you return, the axe falls; you get fired. The last communication you receive from your boss is an email: ‘I’m sorry it had to end like this. You will be missed. I hope that this gives you the time that you need with your father.’

“That would be discrimination under the Family Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Granted, his piece speaks primarily to employees, but there are some nuggets worth reviewing for employers, such as a little-known fact (little known by me anyway) that some bosses seem fine and accommodating with the first child, “but their attitude is that one child should have been enough,” writes Spiggle, an employment lawyer and founder of the Spiggle Law Firm, based in Arlington, Va.

(Note to anyone reading this who considers this a familiar occurrence in his or her organization: Time for some manager training!)

Here’s another nugget: Employees claiming they were discriminated against or weren’t accommodated under family-leave law have much stronger cases if they ask for the law’s protection while they’re still working for you. Spiggle elaborates (remember, this is directed at employees, so interpret between the lines):

“Let me give you an example. Suppose that your boss says that you are a shoo-in for a promotion. Before things become official, you announce your pregnancy. Next thing you know, the promotion goes to a man who is your junior. When you confront your boss, she shrugs and says, ‘Them’s the breaks. Next round.’ Let’s suppose things only go downhill from there and you get fired, even though your performance remained unchanged.

“Here’s the thing: If you had complained about being skipped over for the promotion because you were pregnant before you were fired, you’d have a second claim of retaliation, which is easier to prove and gives you more leverage.

“There’s also a chance that, by reporting your concerns, you might get the problem fixed. Sometimes companies do the right thing when they learn that a rogue manager is violating the law. By reporting what happened, you give the company a chance to fix it.”

Probably the most telling piece of information he shares though — as does Mark McGraw in this HRE Daily post from May — is the fact that the number of family-responsibility-discrimination cases are going way up. McGraw and Spiggle both cite a report, Caregivers in the Workplace: Family Responsibilities Discrimination Litigation Update 2016, showing a 269-percent increase in the number of family-responsibility-discrimination cases between 2006 and 2015.

Many of our HREOnline.com news analyses have also mentioned this increase and the fact that far too many employers still don’t seem to get it when it comes to proactively turning that trend around.

Consider this a reminder, then, to get your anti-family-caregiver-discrimination house in order. And make sure you’re up on the nuances involved, including who has what rights and when — and precisely what this form of discrimination looks like.

Tweet This!

‘Professional Plaintiff’ Targets Firms via FCRA

Meet Cory Groshek. He’s an aspiring rapper who calls himself “Cory Crush.” He’s also a fitness guru who produces YouTube videos featuring himself as “Low Carb Cory.” He also writes scary stories under his own name and has worked as a customer-service representative.

Groshek also has found a pretty lucrative gig targeting companies that unwittingly violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act when they fail to properly disclose their intention to obtain his credit history as part of the hiring process. According to court documents, Groshek has used this tactic to obtain at least $230,000 in legal settlements from companies across the country.

As reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Groshek applied to 562 jobs within an 18-month period of time and has admitted to threatening 40 companies with class-action lawsuits on behalf of all their recent hires for technical violations of the federal law unless they pay him a personal settlement to go away. In most cases, the companies decided to simply pay Groshek — about 20 paid him relatively small settlements of between $5,000 and $35,000.

Under the law, the plaintiffs involved in a FCRA class action could be entitled to up to $1,000 per employee should the case succeed. And, Groshek had good reason to believe he’d succeed: According to WebRecon, the number of FCRA class-action suits filed against companies last year doubled to 400 from the number filed in 2014. Companies such as Domino’s, Home Depot, Uber and the parent company of the Food Lion supermarket chain are among those that have agreed to pay millions of dollars each to settle FCRA class-action suits.

A small number of companies opted not to settle with Groshek, however, and Time Warner Cable was among them. He’d applied for, and was offered, an $11-an hour job with the cable giant. Instead of accepting the job, Groshek sent TWC a 2,300-word letter threatening to sue the company over FCRA violations on behalf of all recent hires unless they paid him a settlement of between $5 million to $10 million. TWC refused to settle and Groshek filed suit, which is how his activities came to light.

TWC’s lawyers have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Groshek (whom they referred to as a “professional plaintiff”) shouldn’t be allowed to sue because he intentionally initiated any alleged violations and that he violated state extortion laws. Groshek has also filed suit against three other companies that refused to settle; those cases are also pending.

Melissa Sorenson, executive director of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners, told the Journal Sentinel that previous settlements of FCRA claims have emboldened more people to file FCRA class-action lawsuits in recent years.

“It’s opened up an entire area of practice,” she told the paper.

Due to the many technical requirements of the FCRA statute, “there are lots of technical ways to violate the statute, and there are a lot of plaintiffs’ attorneys who recognize that,” Veena Iyer, a labor and employment attorney at Nilan Johnson Lewis told my colleague Mark McGraw for a story on FCRA lawsuits last year.

Many employers unintentionally commit FCRA violations in handling adverse-action notices, sources told McGraw. In particular, employers must ensure that applicants are given a meaningful opportunity to challenge any incorrect information that’s uncovered in a background report. Some of the most common FCRA claims are that employers’ background-check disclosure forms contained language not limited to the disclosure required by the statute, the employer failed to provide a pre-adverse action notice, and the employer did not wait the right amount of time before taking final adverse action against an individual.

“Do not assume that no one will challenge the information in the consumer report,” Doug Kauffman, a partner in Balch & Bingham’s labor and employment group, told McGraw. “Employers who become too mechanical in the application of providing the notice of a potential adverse action, wait seven days, and then automatically send the final adverse action, may effectively skip a key requirement under FCRA to provide a meaningful opportunity to the applicant to correct any misinformation.”

Tweet This!

Supreme Court Backs Workers

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-1 yesterday  in the case of Green v. Brennan that the statute of limitations for Title VII constructive discharge claim begins on the date of the employee’s notice of resignation, not on the date of the last alleged discriminatory act by the employer.

According to Fisher Phillips’ Melody Rayl,  the court’s decision is a “bad one” for employers and will likely lead to an uptick in legal claims filed by disgruntled former workers.

“The question that confronted the Supreme Court is important because it goes directly to whether such constructive discharge claims are filed in a timely manner,” Rayl writes. “Prior to filing suit for discrimination under Title VII, employees must first file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days ‘after the alleged unlawful employment practice’ occurred, although the time is extended to as much as 300 days if the claim is also filed with a state or local agency authorized to investigate such claims.”

Further, Rayl writes, the Supreme Court’s decision now opens the door for former employees to file constructive discharge claims long after the alleged discriminatory conduct occurred by simply delaying their resignation indefinitely.

Now may be a good time for some legal background, courtesy of Rayl:

What Is A “Constructive Discharge?”
In a claim for constructive discharge, a former employee accuses the employer of engaging in discriminatory or retaliatory conduct that makes the working conditions so intolerable that any reasonable person in the shoes of that employee would feel they have no choice but to quit. In other words, a constructive discharge means a worker is forced off the job by the employer.

The concept of constructive discharge is a sort of legal fiction, allowing workers who claim to have been subjected to particularly egregious workplace treatment, but who have not been fired, to nonetheless resign from the offensive work environment and preserve their right to seek damages in the form of lost wages and benefits.

While the ruling is plainly a win for employees on this front, Rayl notes there was one area of the ruling in which employers can take solace:

In the smallest of victories for employers, the Court did acknowledge the limitations period should begin to run when the employee gives notice of resignation rather than on the date the resignation becomes effective.

With respect to Green, the Court found the facts were not sufficiently developed to pinpoint precisely when his notice of resignation occurred. Thus, the Court remanded the case back to the Tenth Circuit to determine, as a factual matter, whether he gave notice of his resignation on the date he signed the settlement agreement or nearly two months later when he submitted his retirement paperwork.

All things considered, that’s a small victory for employers indeed.

Tweet This!

Supreme Court Deals a Blow to the EEOC

The upshot of today’s U.S. Supreme Court unanimous ruling in favor of a trucking company in CRST Van Expedited Inc. v. EEOC is that a company can still be considered the prevailing party in a court case — and thus be eligible for reimbursement of its legal fees by the other party — even if it doesn’t win a favorable judgment on the merits of its argument.

CRST, a trucking company, had been awarded a record $4.7 million in legal fees against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by a trial court after a class action brought against the company by the EEOC on behalf of 154 female drivers was found to have been without merit. The EEOC’s suit had alleged that CRST allowed “severe and pervasive” sexual harassment against female drivers in its driver-training program. The case was later dismissed by the court because it found that the EEOC had failed to show a pattern or practice of discrimination, nor did it fully investigate the claims, find reasonable cause and attempt reconciliation prior to filing suit.

However, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the $4.7 million award because the claims were dismissed without ruling on their merit and thus CRST was ineligible per Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which grants attorney fee awards to “prevailing” defendants who can show the EEOC’s position was “unreasonable or frivolous.”

Writing for the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy said there was no indication that Congress had intended “that defendants should be eligible to recover attorney’s fees only when courts dispose of claims on their merits.”

“It would make little sense if Congress’ policy of ‘sparing defendants from the cost of frivolous litigation’ depended on the distinction between merits-based and non-merits-based frivolity.”

The ruling sends the case back to the lower court for further review.

Tweet This!

The Cost of Not Accommodating Caregivers

Some employers “still aren’t getting it when it comes to discriminating against employees with family responsibilities.”

So says Joan C. Williams, founding director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in a recent statement highlighting findings from a new UC Hastings study.

And, judging by some of the statistics found in said study, it’s hard to argue that she has a point.

The report, Caregivers in the Workplace: Family Responsibilities Discrimination Litigation Update 2016, analyzed 4,400 family responsibilities discrimination cases that were filed in the United States between the years 2006 and 2015.  Report author Cynthia Thomas Calver looked at employees’ claims alleging discrimination based on their status as a pregnant woman, mother, father, or a caregiver for a sick or disabled family member or an aging or ill parent, and found a 269 percent increase in the number of such cases filed in that 10-year span, compared to the prior decade.

While you’re digesting that number, chew on these facts and figures to emerge from the UC Hastings report:

  • Claims for FRD have been filed in every U.S. state.
  • Cases involving eldercare have increased 650 percent in the last 10 years.
  • Pregnancy accommodation cases have gone up by 315 percent.
  • Though the number of claims remains small, suits in which an employer is alleged to have denied accommodations or discriminated against an employee because she was breastfeeding or needed to express milk during the workday has risen by 800 percent.
  • Male employees have brought 55 percent of spousal care cases, 39 percent of eldercare cases, 38 percent of FMLA cases and 28 percent of childcare cases.
  • A clear majority of employees are succeeding with family responsibilities discrimination suits, with workers winning 67 percent of the FRD claims that went to trial from ’06 to ’15.

Naturally, these claims are hitting American employers pretty hard in the wallet. FRD litigation cost U.S. companies $477 million over the past decade (compared to roughly $197 million from 1996 to 2005), according to the WorkLife Law report, which suggests that the actual amount is “likely to be significantly higher, as many settlements are confidential.” These figures “also fail to capture the ripple effects of discrimination, including employee attrition and related replacement costs, damage to the company’s public reputation and reductions in the morale and productivity of all employees.”

The report also lays out some steps for preventing family responsibilities discrimination within the organization, such as providing supervisor training, adopting anti-discrimination policies that include family responsibilities, activating HR-run oversight programs and ensuring that the company’s procedures for responding to employee complaints address FRD.

In the aforementioned statement, Calvert, a senior advisor to the Center for WorkLife Law, stresses the importance of adapting to America’s evolving workforce and families, and the cost of failing to do so.

“Until employers adjust to the realities of families with all adults in the paid workforce and a significant growth in the number of older Americans who need assistance from their adult working children, it’s unlikely we’ll see a decrease in the number of cases filed.”

Tweet This!

New Trade Secrets Law: The HR Angle

It’s incredibly rare these days for a proposed law to receive near-unanimous backing in the U.S. House and Senate but, by George, our nation’s politicians managed to pull off this miraculous feat recently, which culminated with President Obama affixing his signature yesterday to the Defend Trade Secrets Act.

The new law puts trade secrets on par with patents, copyrights and trademarks, which are already protected under federal law. The Defend Trade Secrets Act provides a “uniform set of rules for trade secret protection” throughout the United States (although it does not replace trade secret laws passed by individual states). The upshot is that companies whose trade secrets were violated in multiple states can now file suit in a federal court rather than trying to determine which state may (or may not) provide the best legal remedy.

Trade secret claims have long been a key component of employee non-compete agreement lawsuits, writes Chris Marquardt, a partner at Alston & Bird’s labor and employment law group. For this reason, the new federal law “not only gives employers another tool to protect their confidential business information, but will also likely shift many routine employment-agreement lawsuits into the federal court system,” he writes.

Employee non-compete agreements can vary widely from state to state and the new law is written in such a way as to recognize that “the statute should not override state laws” on such agreements, Marquardt writes. However, he adds, “only time will tell how broadly federal courts interpret the new law and how willing they are to use it to prevent employees from accepting new jobs in competition with a former employer.”

Brett Coburn, also a partner with Alston & Bird, writes that one of the less-frequently discussed aspects of the new law is one that will impact nearly all employers: “The law grants both criminal and civil immunity under both federal and state trade secrets laws to individuals who disclose a company’s trade secrets to the government” if the person has reason to suspect that a legal violation has occurred. It also requires employers to notify employees of this immunity “in any agreements that govern the use of trade secrets or other confidential information.”

To ensure compliance, Coburn writes, HR leaders and legal counsel will need to reexamine their company’s restrictive covenant and nondisclosure agreements, as well as policies regarding the protection of confidential information and employee whistleblower activities.

Tweet This!

Employee Handbooks Under Scrutiny

OK, pop quiz: What’s the difference between these two employee-handbook policies?

  1. “Be respectful to the company, other employees, customers, partners, and competitors.”
  2. “Each employee is expected to work in a cooperative manner with management/supervision, co-workers, customers and vendors.”

One, according to the National Labor Relations Board, is legal. The other is not. (I’ll tell you which was which in a minute.)

Don’t fret if you have trouble seeing the difference. That’s why we have lawyers. And that’s why there’s plenty of work for them as the ThinkstockPhotos-517631808NLRB cracks down on employee-handbook language — including provisions that once were standard — that it says is too broad.

In a series of rulings the agency has told companies to revise policies that infringe on rights of workers — unionized or not — to talk to each other about the company in person or through social media.

“Employers are really waking up to this,” says Lauri F. Rasnick, a member of the firm at Epstein Becker Green of New York. “For a long time, nonunionized employers didn’t give a lot of thought to NLRB decisions.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce contends the effort is part of an anti-employer crusade. In a highly critical December report titled “Theater of the Absurd: The NLRB Takes on the Employee Handbook,” the trade group argues that the agency “has undertaken a campaign to outlaw heretofore uncontroversial rules found in employee handbooks and in employers’ social media policies.”

Worse, according to the chamber: the NLRB’s guidance to employers often is contradictory, creating “a morass of confusion that leaves employers wondering just how they are to exercise effective control over their workplaces.”

Rasnick agrees. “I do think that’s part of the challenge for employers,” she says, noting that NLRB decisions aren’t always consistent. And they are continuing to evolve, with confidentiality provisions attracting more scrutiny in recent rulings, she says.

The latest headline came this month after an administrative law judge ruled that Quicken Loans and five related companies had illegal rules in its employee handbook, which it calls “The Big Book.” (Despite the Quicken name, the companies are not owned by software company Intuit; they’re led by Dan Gilbert, majority owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers.)

To the untutored eye, many of the rules seem pretty standard stuff. An example: “Think before you Tweet. Or post, comment or pin. What you share can live forever. If it doesn’t belong on the front page of The New York Times, don’t put it online.”

The problem with this rule, wrote judge David I. Goldman in his April 7 ruling:  Although the policy doesn’t tell workers they can’t bad-mouth the company online, “an employee considering this suggestion would reasonably feel chilled by this rule from expressing negative (but protected) information” about the employer.

The companies are appealing the decision to the full board. But there’s little indication that the NLRB is letting up on the effort.

Back to our pop quiz. Of those two employee-handbook policies, the first (“be respectful”) is illegal, according to the NLRB’s general counsel. The second (“work in a cooperative manner”) is OK.

The problem is in telling workers they must be “respectful” to management, as well as customers and others, wrote Richard F. Griffin Jr. in a memo last year. An employee might reasonably see that as a ban on complaining about the company, he wrote.

The second example is legal, Griffin wrote. “Employees would reasonably understand that it is stating the employer’s legitimate expectation that employees work together in an atmosphere of civility.”

Tweet This!

Reflecting on Uber’s Classification Settlement

Worker classification can be a major headache for companies of all shapes and sizes, but for employers embracing the shared-economy business model, it can be one of migraine proportions.

Uber_ride_Bogota_(10277864666)No one knows this better than Uber, which has been facing an onslaught of lawsuits from drivers seeking employee status. Were the drivers to win that battle in the courts, the implications for the firm’s business would be huge.

Well, as you may have heard, Uber avoided that potential outcome in California and Massachusetts when it settled two class-action lawsuits: O’Connor vs. Uber and Yucesoy vs. Uber, respectively.

In the settlement, the parties agreed that …

  • Drivers will remain independent contractors, not employees;
  • Uber will pay $84 million to the plaintiffs (and there would be a second payment of $16 million if Uber goes public and its valuation increases one-and-a-half times from its December 2015 financing valuation within the first year of an IPO);
  • The firm will provide drivers with more information about their individual rating and how it compares with their peers. (It would also introduce a policy explaining the circumstances under which it deactivates drivers in these states from using the app); and
  • The parties would work together to create a driver’s association in both states, with Uber helping to fund these two associations.

In a post about the settlements, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick wrote that Uber is “pleased that this settlement recognizes that drivers should remain as independent contractors, not employees,” noting that drivers value their independence—the freedom to push a button rather than punch a clock.

Kalanick admitted that, as Uber has grown, “… we haven’t always done a good job working with drivers.”

As a story in the Los Angeles Times points out, the settlement still needs to be approved by a judge in the District Court of Northern California, which could take months.

“If approved,” the paper reports, “the payment will be distributed among drivers in California and Massachusetts who performed at least one trip up until the date of the preliminary settlement approval. Distribution will be based on miles driven while a passenger was in the car.”

The plantiffs’ attorney, Shannon Liss-Riordan, released a statement to various press outlets saying the settlement was the right move, considering the risk of having a jury rule against the plaintiffs.

Earlier today, I spoke to Thomas Lewis, a shareholder in the Princeton, N.J., office of Stevens & Lee, who told me it was probably a smart move for Uber, too.

“What’s interesting about the Uber case is that the class-action settlement came just short of effectively giving certain rights to these independent contractors that should belong to employees,” he said. “So this is telling me that Uber is clearly aware that there could be a push to classifying independent contractors as employees were it to go through the court system and there was an adjudication.”

And it’s no secret, of course, that, were Uber to come up on the losing end of a court battle, it would be costly, considering the company’s business model.

Of course, there’s no way to know if this will put an end to the worker-classification issue at Uber. Lewis noted if a new class action is filed, it would be need to be filed with a different set of facts or issues that were brought forth.

But at least for the time being, you would think Uber executives should be able to rest a little easier.

Tweet This!