Narayanasamy et al v. Issa et al

Filing 86

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 68 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 83 Motion to Strike - So Ordered by Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. on 1/16/2020. (Barletta, Barbara)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
)

LOKESHWARAN NARAYANASAMY;
SAVI TRY KRISHNAMUR'l'HY,
Individually and as Parent, Natural
Guardian, and Next Best Friend of
SMITA LOKESHWARAN,
Plaintiffs,

)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
)
CLAUDETTE ISSA; BALISE 'I', LLC; )
)
RASIER, LLC; UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; JOHN DOE; )
)
and JANE DOE,
)
Defendants.

C.A. No. 1:17·cv·G03·JJM·LDA

________________________ )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOl-IN J. MCCONNELL, JR., Chief Judge, United States District Court.
Needing a ride from T.F. Green Airport to his hotel, Mr. Lokeshwaran
Narayanasamy used the Uber Application on his cell phone to summon a driver.
Defendant Claudette Issa, a registered Uber driver, responded and picked him up.
During the trip, Ms. Issa's car collided with a vehicle owned by Balise T, LLC
("Baliso") abandoned by the roadside after breaking down. Both Mr. Narayanasamy
and Ms. Issa suffered injuries.
The Narayanasamy's filed an eight-count complaint against Ms. Issa; Balise;
Rasier, LLC and Uber Technologies, Inc. (collectively "Uber"); John Doe; and Jane
Doe. ECF No. 1. Claiming Ms. Issa was negligent, Mr. Narayanasamy, along with
his

wife

Savitry Krishnamurthy and their minor child (collectively "the

Narayanasamy's"), seeks compensation from Uber under a theory of respondeat
supenor. They also sued Balise for negligence. Ms. Issa has brought crossclaims for
personal injury and indemnification against Balise, John Doe, and Jane Doe. ECF
No. 22.

Balise filed crossclaims against Ms. Issa and Uber for contribution and

indemnification, alleging negligence, negligent hiring, training, and supervision.
ECF No. 14. Uber brought crossclaims against Defendants Balise, John Doe, and
Jane Doe. ECF Nos. 17, 19.
Uber moves for summary judgment, 1 claiming that Ms. Iss a is not an agent,
servant, or employee of Uber as a matter of law, and thus it cannot be held liable
under any respondeat superior theory. ECF No. 68. Balise and the Narayanasamy's
oppose tho motion, arguing that sumnwry judgment is inappropriate because enough
questions of fact exist. ECF No. 71, 79. Uber filed a reply. ECF No. 81.

Standard ofReview
When making a sununary judgment determination, the Court should review
the entire record and consider the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to
the no!1'moving party. Continental Cas. Co. v. Canadian Univ. h1s. Co., 924 F.2d370,
373 (1st Cir. 1991).

Summary judgment is warranted when "the pleadings [and

discovery), together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter

Uber also moves to strike and/or objects to various evidence cited in Balise's
Statement of Undisputed Facts. ECF No. 83. The Court has determined that there
is enough relevant evidence in dispute at this stage to send the matter to the jury so
that motion is DENIED because most if not all the issues Uber raises are best dealt
with at the time of trial when the Court will deal with evidentiary issues.
1

2

oflaw." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A genuine dispute of material fact is an issue that "may
reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v.

Liber~y Lobby,

Inc., 477

U.S. 242, 250 (198G).

Analysis
The question here is whether Ms. Issa is an Uber employee rendering Uber
liable for tho injuries resulting from the car accident. In its motion, Uber argues that
it cannot be held liable as a matter oflaw for Ms. Issa's negligence because she is an
independent contractor not an Uber employee. Mr. Narayanasamy counters that the
Court should look into the reality of the relationship between Ms. Issa and Uberone that he believes bears many hallmarks of an employer·employee relationshipand should deny summary judgment because there is a dispute over that relationship.
The parties do not appear to dispute, however, that whether a relationship
between parties constitutes an employer·omployee relationship is a mixed question
of fact and law and "depends in each case upon its particular facts taken as a whole."

Di01io v. R. L. Platte1; h1c., 211 A.2d 642, 644 (R.I. 1965). 2 There can be no fixed rule
in these cases because '"no single phase of the evidence is determinative."'

Id.

(quoting Sonnanti v. Jlfm·sor JewelTy Co., 118 A.2d 339, 340 (R.I. 1955)). Therefore,
a person's status in the work world-whether an employee or an independent

Nowhere in its lVIemorandum (ECF No. 68·11) or Reply (ECF No. 81) does
Uber challenge Balise's procedural assertion that whether an entity is liable under a
theory of respondeat superior is a mixed question and should go to the jury in the
first instance if there aro disputed facts or disputes on how the facts should apply to
the law.
2

3

contractor-should be decided by a jury when enough facts could support either
finding.
Other courts have held that the mixed fact· law question of whether Uber
drivers are Uber employees belongs to the jury.

Judge Edward M. Chen of the

Northern District of California denied Uber's summary judgment motion, finding
based on tho facts in the case and reflecting on the United States Supreme Court's
recent decision in Ilana Fh1ancial, Inc. v. Hmw Bank, -U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 907, 190
L.Ed.2d 800 (2015), that a jury should decide whether Uber drivers wore considered
employees or independent contractors. O'CoJmOT v. UbeT Tech, h1c., 82 F. Supp. 3d
1133 (N.D. Cal. 2015); See HanaFin., 135 S.Ct. at 912 (unless the facts are so clear
that only one inference may be drawn, mixed questions of law and fact are for the
jury).
The court

recogni~ed

that a "'jury's constitutional responsibility is not merely

to determine the facts, but to apply the law to those facts and draw tho ultimate
conclusion."' O'Conn01; 82 F. Supp. 3d at 1147 (quoting United States v. Gaudin, 515
U.S. 506, 512 (1995)). It observed that
juries answer often-dispositive factual questions or make dispositive
applications of legal standards to facts. The fact that another jury,
hearing the same case, might reach a different conclusion may make the
system 'unpredictable,' but it has never stopped us from employing
juries in those analogous contexts."

O'Conn01; 82 F. Supp. 3d at 1148 (quoting Hana Fin, 135 S. Ct. at 912) ("juries
should typically decide mixed questions of law and fact ... [and] a hiree's status as
either an employee or independent contractor should typically be determined by a

4

jury, and not the judge."). Resolving this dispute will turn on the facts determined
by the jury and the jury's application of the facts to the law as given to it by the Court.
To the extent thoro is a concern that a jury "may improperly apply the relevant legal
standard, tho solution is to craft careful jury instructions that make that standard
clear." Id. at 1148 (quoting HanaFin., 135 S. Ct. at 912). At the motion for sununary
judgment stage, the Court's only determination is whether Balise and the
Narayanasamy's have set forth enough evidence that if believed, a jury could
determine that the driver, Ms. Issa was an employee of Uber.-1
Next, the Court looks at how state law views the parameters of the employeremployee relationship to see if more than one inference could be drawn such that the
question should go to the jury.

Under Rhode Island law, the test to determine

whether a person is an employee or an independent. contractor is "'based on the
employer's right or power to exercise control over the method and means of
performing the work and not merely the exercise of actual control."' Cayer v. Cox

a The First Circuit has not yet dealt with whether Uber drivers are employees.
Other courts have and there is some disagreement among them. See, e.g:, Search v.
Uber Tech., Inc., 128 F. Supp. 3d 222 (D.D.C. 2015), Doe v. Uber Tech, Inc., 184 F.

Supp. 3d 774 (N.D. Cal. 201G) (passenger sufficiently alleged that Uber driver is an
employee) but see A1cGillis v. Dep't of Econ. Opportuni~v, 210 So. 3d 220 (Fla. Dist.
Ct. App. 2017) (Uber driver is not an employee for purposes of reemployment
assistance).
Recently, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce
Development sent Uber a $G50 million bill for misclassifying its drivers as
independent contractors, instead of employees. Jack Kelly, New Jerse.r Hit Uber with

a $650 A1Illion Tax Bill for J11isclwractenzing Tflorkers: Is This the Start of a H~1r
Against
Gig-Economy
Companies?,
FORBES,
Nov.
15,
2019,
https :f/www .forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/20 19/11/15/new-jersey-hi t-uber-with- a- G50million- tax- bill-fonnisclassifying-workers·is -this- the-start-of- a ·war-against- gigeconomy·companies/#229c5e34G4Ge.
5

Rhode hland Telecom, LLC, 85 A.3d 1140, 1144 (R.I. 2014) (quoting Absi v. State
Dcp't ofAdmin., 785 A.2d 554, 556 (R.I. 2001) (citation omitted)). Considering this
legal framework, the Court now moves to the parties' views of the disputed and
undisputed facts of this case.
Uber asserts that the evidence shows that it is merely a software provider with
no actual or apparent control or authority over drivers like Ms. Issa. As evidence that
Ms. Issa is not an employee, Uber cites to the Technology Services Agreement (TSA)
executed between .Ms. Issa and Rasier, which states she is an independent contractor.
Uber also points to the General Assembly's determination that Uber drivers are
independent contractors.

R.I. Gen. Laws § 39·14.2·16 ("TNC drivers shall be

independent contractors and not employees of the TNC if they are determined to meet
federal and state law and regulation relating to independent contractors, including,
but not limited to, 26 U.S.C. § 3401(a), 26 U.S.C. § 3402(a)(1), §§ 28-29·17.1 and 2842-7, and the TNC and TNC driver agree in writing that the TNC driver is an
independent contractor of the TNC."). Finally, Uber relies on Ms. Issa's deposition
testimony where she agrees that she is an independent contractor.
In addition to the 'l'NC statute and the 'l'SA that all drivers sign, Uber points
to tho fact. that the driver controls the method and means of how they provide their
services to riders, whether they chose to work or not work on any given day or any
given time, whether to accept rides, what route to take, how to drive their car,
whether also to work for a competitor (such as Lyft), and drivers provide their own
equipment. Also, Uber does not pay the driver, tho riders do.

6

On the other side of the road, Balise and Mr. Narayanasamy assert that Uber
is a service provider and employer of driver/partners. Their view of the evidence is
that Uber "controls" their drivers, so it assumes liability for their actions.
general~v,

1.

See

ECF No. 71 at 14-15, 27-28. For example, they argue that: 4

Uber controls the finances: Uber unilaterally sets and controls fares:

Uber pays its drivers and can alter payment if the driver receives a complaint: a
rider's terms and financial relationship is with Ubcr directly not the driver: Uber
collects the fares through a rider's credit card and the drivers have no option to collect
fares directly from riders: fares set by Uber vary based on demand and peak times:
Uber solely decides when and if prices surge to higher levels.
2.

Uber controls the branding and marketing. Uber provides drivers with

Uber logos for their vehicles: drivers are prohibited from having business cards or
soliciting rides outside the Uber App; Uber sends riders using the Uber App a
message that they can rely on Uber to provide "safe, reliable" rides, and that Uber
has "peace of mind designed into every ride:" Uber expressly assures its riders that it
actively screens drivers, and acts on ratings so that the riders may have "peace of
mind."
3.

Uber imposes requirements on the drivers: Uber has guidelines for

quality, cleanliness, and behavior standards: Uber exercises substantial regulation

I
I

Because the only question for this Court at this stage is whether there are
disputed facts supporting the contention that Ms. Issa was an employee ofUber, the
Court turns its primary focus to whether the evidence Mr. Narayanasamy presents
is disputed and whether other inferences could be drawn.
·I

7

I

and control over driver performance by reserving the right "at any time in Company's
sole discretion to deactivate or otherwise restrict" access to the Uber App; Uber has
threatened drivers with "deactivation" for issues such as having a poor attitude or
not taking the most efficient/direct route on a trip, a rider complaining about a bad
smelling car, trying to settle disputes directly with riders, asking riders to be paid for
damage dono to tho driver's vehicle, low customer ratings, cancelling too many rides,
or for failing to accept enough rides while "on·duty."
4.

Uber handles disputes and adjudications: Uber handles and adjudicates

any rider disputes: in resolving disputes, Uber may reduce a rider's fare in its sole
discretion and thereby, a driver's income.
5.

RelationslnjJ dil·ectly between Uber and the Jider: Uber maintains an

ongoing relationship with riders through in·App advertisements and solicitations;
Uber often offers riders reduced fares, special faro packages, free hotel stays, and
other promotions, such as "Ubor cash" that are credits that can be used to pay for
rides, scooters, or bicycles, or food delivery through Uber's "UberEats" App; Uber
periodically runs contest giveaways for riders including concert tickets and vacations
as a marketing strategy; riders may also join special membership levels such as "Uber
Gold" and "Uber VIP" to enjoy special privileges; Uber offers a "24/7'' support team to
address any rider concerns.
G.

Uber provides benefits to dn'vers: Uber offers paid liability and

comprehensive collision insurance, and rights to participate in health insurance
offerings for which Ubor has negotiated group rates; for applicants who do not have

8

their own car, Uber offers "the Uber rental car program" so that drivers can get a
ready·to·go car at a low commitment; if a driver does not have their own smartphone,
Uber will provide one for business use.
7.

Employer-like activities: Uber requires driver applicants to upload their

driver's license information, vehicle's registration, and insurance; applicants must
pass a background chock; Uber encourages drivers to work as much time for Uber
and not look for other employment; Uber drivers must agree to Uber's rules and
oversight.
These facts raise disputes here such that "reasonable people could differ on
whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor based on the evidence
in the case." Cotter v. Lyft, h1c., GO F. Supp. 3d 10G7, 107G (N.D. Cal. 2015). The
Court therefore finds that "the question is not for a court to decide; it must go to the
jury," id., and declines to dismiss Uber on summary judgment. 5

Conclusion
This Court finds that genume 1ssues of material fact exist such that the
determination of whether Uber is liable for Ms. Issa's alleged negligence should be
resolved by a jury. The Court therefore DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment.

ECF No. GS.

Uber's Motion to Strike/Objections to some exhibits to

Balise's Statement of Undisputed Facts is also DENIED. ECF No. 83.

I

I
For the same reasons that the jury should decide whether there is an
employer-employee relationship, it should also decide tho issue of apparent authority.
5

9

John J. McConnell, Jr.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
January lG, 2020

i
I
\

f

'

10