Aslam v. Uber (2021): Redefining Employment Status in the Gig Economy
by Admin
Posted on 07-06-2024 04:21 PM
In pimlico plumbers ltd and another v smith , the supreme court explored the
employment
status of individuals working in the gig economy for companies such as deliveroo and uber.
The question was whether these self-employed workers were qualified as workers and therefore entitled to rights such as paid annual leave. The supreme court confirmed that yes, this was the case: self-employed individuals were workers. Conditions within the company itself influenced this decision as their “tight control” led to the enforceability of requirements, such as wearing a branded uniform and following its instructions closely, providing services personally and applying restrictive covenants that the workers had to contractually agree with.
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
In muldrow, the officer has challenged any definition of “adverse employment action” that requires a plaintiff to suffer a “tangible” or “material” employment disadvantage in order to prevail on a title vii claim. Muldrow alleges that she was transferred from her position in the st. Louis police department’s intelligence division to the department’s fifth district because of her gender.
After her transfer, muldrow experienced no change in pay or rank; she maintained a supervisory role; she had similarly serious and important responsibilities; and she suffered no harm to future career prospects. The trial court and the eighth circuit court of appeals, applying the long-standing reasoning described above, both ruled that muldrow’s transfer did not constitute an “adverse employment action” because she suffered no material employment disadvantage.
Co-authored by: amanda karras, executive director/general counsel, international municipal lawyers association (imla) last week, the supreme court announced its opinion in the case of muldrow v. City of st. Louis, a title vii employment law case. Title vii of the civil rights act is known as the federal employment discrimination law. In their 6-3 decision, the court created a new standard under title vii that applies to employee transfers, including local government employees. In this case, the city of st. Louis police commissioner transferred twenty-three police officers. One of these transferred officers, sergeant muldrow, was transferred out of the intelligence division into a new job that was less prestigious, although her pay and rank remained the same.
750 E Green St, 310 Pasadena 91101-2153
Here are some examples of what kinds of cases and proceedings we have recently appeared in at the stanley mosk courthouse: judge green, department 14. Got defendant and their attorney sanctioned (fined) for refusing to turnover documents to prove a sexual harassment case, and to answer questions about the company’s sexual harassment investigation. We also had a class action lawsuit in his court room in which workers were not paid overtime, and were not given meal or rest breaks. Richard fruin, department 15. One year i had a wrongful termination case in which he denied a motion to compel arbitration.
By robert w. Schmidt even with “at-will” employment in texas, state and federal laws—including discrimination and retaliation statutes—prohibit employers from terminating or taking other negative actions against an employee for certain illegal reasons. In almost all employment cases, a central issue is: how does the employee show that the employer acted with an illegal motivation? “there’s no employment case here! nobody at the employer ever even said a word about the employee’s (race, age, disability, or other protected characteristic or activity)!” this sentiment is often heard from employers, co-workers, and occasionally experienced attorneys, albeit those who have not practiced much in the area of employment law.