Lyft settles landmark driver misclassification lawsuit for $272.5M
Lyft settles landmark driver misclassification lawsuit for $272.5M
Lyft 就司机身份误分类诉讼达成 2.725 亿美元里程碑式和解
California’s attorney general and three city attorneys announced a $272.5 million settlement with Lyft after allegations that the company “committed wage theft by misclassifying drivers as independent contractors rather than employees” between 2016 and 2020, according to a Thursday statement.
根据周四发布的一份声明，加利福尼亚州总检察长及三位城市检察官宣布与 Lyft 达成 2.725 亿美元的和解协议。此前，该公司被指控在 2016 年至 2020 年期间，“通过将司机错误分类为独立承包商而非雇员，从而实施了工资盗窃”。
The case dates back to May 2020, when then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who is now the Democratic candidate for governor, sued both Uber and Lyft. That lawsuit said the ridehailing companies evaded state law when they declared that their drivers were not employees. Thursday’s settlement affects only Lyft, while the case against Uber continues.
该案件可追溯至 2020 年 5 月，当时担任总检察长（现为民主党州长候选人）的泽维尔·贝塞拉（Xavier Becerra）起诉了 Uber 和 Lyft。该诉讼称，这些网约车公司在宣称其司机并非雇员时，规避了州法律。周四的和解协议仅涉及 Lyft，而针对 Uber 的诉讼仍在继续。
“We are proud to announce this landmark win for workers, the largest misclassification settlement in California’s history,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in the statement. “Rideshare companies like Lyft have enjoyed massive growth and profits on the backs of drivers over the past decade, many who are from immigrant communities and communities of color.”
“我们很自豪能宣布这一为劳动者取得的里程碑式胜利，这是加州历史上金额最大的身份误分类和解案，”总检察长罗伯·邦塔（Rob Bonta）在声明中表示。“在过去十年里，像 Lyft 这样的网约车公司依靠司机实现了巨大的增长和利润，而这些司机中许多人来自移民社区和有色人种社区。”
The city attorneys echoed this sentiment. “Los Angeles and our statewide partners will not allow businesses to exploit their workers and evade their obligations under the law,” Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto said in the same statement. “When companies misclassify their workers, they deny them critical protections and shift the burden onto taxpayers. This historic settlement sends a clear message: Companies must follow the law, pay their fair share, and play by the rules.”
城市检察官们也表达了同样的观点。洛杉矶市检察官海迪·费尔斯坦·索托（Hydee Feldstein Soto）在同一声明中表示：“洛杉矶和我们的全州合作伙伴绝不允许企业剥削员工并逃避法律义务。当公司对员工进行错误分类时，他们剥夺了员工的关键保障，并将负担转嫁给了纳税人。这一历史性和解协议传递了一个明确的信息：公司必须遵守法律，支付应付的份额，并按规则行事。”
Ever since these rideshare companies began in the early 2010s, they have been scrutinized for underpaying and mistreating drivers. The specific state law that California used to challenge the companies is known as Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which enshrined a three-part test to determine if someone is properly classified as an independent contractor or an employee.
自 2010 年代初这些网约车公司成立以来，它们一直因低薪和虐待司机而受到审查。加州用来挑战这些公司的具体州法律被称为“第 5 号议会法案”（AB5），该法案确立了一项三部分测试，用于确定某人是否被正确归类为独立承包商或雇员。
In November 2020, California voters approved a state ballot measure, Proposition 22, which was organized primarily by Uber and Lyft. The new law gave ride-hailing companies an exemption to AB5—which is why this settlement only covers the 2016-2020 period.
2020 年 11 月，加州选民投票通过了一项州公投提案——“第 22 号提案”（Proposition 22），该提案主要由 Uber 和 Lyft 组织。这项新法律使网约车公司获得了 AB5 的豁免权，这也是为什么此次和解仅涵盖 2016 年至 2020 年期间的原因。
In a statement provided to Ars Technica, Lyft CEO David Risher pointed to the Proposition 22 vote. “The vast majority of rideshare drivers in California have always wanted to be independent contractors,” he said, “and voters affirmed that when they passed Prop 22 in 2020, giving drivers new benefits and protections while preserving their flexibility. And since then, Lyft has gone further than Prop 22 requires, becoming the only rideshare company with a fee cap. Lyft believes drivers have always been properly classified under the law, and we’re glad to put this case behind us.”
在提供给《Ars Technica》的一份声明中，Lyft 首席执行官大卫·里舍（David Risher）提到了第 22 号提案的投票结果。“加州绝大多数网约车司机一直希望成为独立承包商，”他说，“选民在 2020 年通过第 22 号提案时肯定了这一点，在保留司机灵活性的同时为他们提供了新的福利和保护。自那时起，Lyft 的做法甚至超出了第 22 号提案的要求，成为唯一一家设有费用上限的网约车公司。Lyft 认为司机在法律下一直被正确分类，我们很高兴能将此案抛在身后。”
Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine who has long been an outspoken critic of Uber and Lyft, emailed Ars to say that Thursday’s settlement should not be viewed as a pure win for drivers. “While the state should be lauded for taking on these behemoth firms, this is a paltry sum compared to what drivers are owed,” she wrote. Their wages “would have gone to rent and food for families. And the fact that they only have to pay a small portion of what was owed to thousands of low-income, mostly immigrant and racial-minority workers means that this system is not working the way it should.”
加州大学欧文分校法学教授、长期直言不讳批评 Uber 和 Lyft 的维娜·杜巴尔（Veena Dubal）在给《Ars》的电子邮件中表示，周四的和解不应被视为司机的纯粹胜利。“虽然州政府挑战这些巨头公司的行为值得称赞，但与司机应得的报酬相比，这笔金额微不足道，”她写道。这些工资“本应是家庭的房租和伙食费。事实上，他们只需支付欠数千名低收入、主要是移民和少数族裔工人的欠款中的一小部分，这意味着这个系统并没有按照它应有的方式运作。”
In recent years, workers have continued to organize and advocate for better pay and working conditions. In August, the state’s labor board recognized the new California Gig Workers Union, which was formed after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law last year allowing such a union to be formed.
近年来，劳动者们持续组织起来，争取更好的薪酬和工作条件。今年 8 月，州劳工委员会承认了新成立的“加州零工工会”（California Gig Workers Union），该工会是在加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）州长去年签署允许成立此类工会的法律后组建的。