According to the Complaint, the class of similarly-situated employees could top 100.At this very early stage of the litigation, it is a little difficult to tell what Serve Robotics thought it was doing. It appears that the company sought to treat Masuda and others as temporary gig workers, albeit perhaps unprotected by any formal agreement. Contracts are the only protection that independent contractors have, outside of federal and state employment laws. More facts will certainly come to light, but it bears remembering that California employees, unlike robots, have a myriad of wage and hour protections.
Allegations of unpaid work, miscalculated pay
Masuda’s allegations fall into four general categories:
- Miscalculated pay. He claims that Serve Robotics improperly excluded nondiscretionary bonuses and other compensation when calculating employees’ pay. This, in turn, affected overtime and meal break premiums.
- Failure to provide meal and rest breaks. The lawsuit contends that Serve Robotics also failed to provide duty-free 30-minute meal breaks for every five consecutive hours worked.
- Off-the-clock work. Masuda also contends that employees were frequently required to work off- the-clock, doing tasks such as retrieving equipment from storage and answering questions after clocking out, without receiving compensation.
- No official policies or practices regarding rest periods or meal breaks. There do not appear to have been any procedures in place to ensure that the company was prepared to comply with California’s wage and hour laws.
This case adds another layer to the ongoing debate surrounding worker classification and labor rights in the gig (or independent contractor) economy.
California wage and hour protections
The dispute at the heart of Masuda v. Serve Robotics, Inc. has to do with whether Masuda and the class of individuals he seeks to represent were employees or independent contractors. Independent contractors have the rights set out in their contracts, which are generally formalized.
California employees, on the other hand, are protected by the provisions of federal and California labor laws. The seminal test for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee is often referred to as the “ABC test.”
Under the ABC test, a worker is presumed to be an employee covered by the provisions of the law unless all three of the following conditions are met:
- The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact;
- The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
- The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
READ MORE CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW LEGAL NEWS
Implications for the gig economy
Much has yet to play out in the Masuda case, but it highlights the ongoing challenges in classifying workers in the gig economy. As technology continues to evolve and new business models emerge, traditional employment relationships are being redefined. The question of whether workers in the gig economy should be classified as employees or independent contractors has significant implications for their rights and protections.
If successful, the lawsuit could have broader implications for other companies that rely on similar business models. It may lead to increased scrutiny of worker classification practices, wage and hour compliance, and the overall treatment of workers in this rapidly growing sector.