For further information on the litigation history, please refer back to our previously released summary: Uber’s landmark appeal unsuccessful: Uncertainty surrounding flexible work remains.

The Supreme Court’s decision^[5]

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Uber’s appeal finding all the Drivers are employees of Uber, although there were differing approaches taken in reaching the decision.

In rejecting Uber’s argument that it merely provides a digital platform for drivers and riders to connect and establish their own business arrangements, the Supreme Court found that “a passenger could not reasonably be expected to think they were contracting with the driver when they got into the car”. It was unanimously held that Uber engages its drivers to deliver transportation services to users without establishing a pre-trip contract between each user and driver, and without the option for drivers and riders to choose one another.

The Supreme Court also determined that Uber’s “take it or leave it” contracts merely disguise the true nature of the employment relationship and should not be given weight when determining if the Drivers were employees.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the Drivers own and manage their vehicles and have complete control over their work hours which indicates a contractor status, but found there were strong elements of control and integration into Uber’s business including that:

• Uber controls routes, monitors performance, enforces policies outside trip times, retains the whole fare for each drive before passing the Drivers' share onto them;
• Uber controls the terms of service and can change them at will;
• the Drivers lack control over their quality and quantity of work, pay rates, and customer relationships, as customers belong to Uber, not the Drivers; and
• the Drivers are integrated into the business because “[t]hey are the face of Uber’s business, and the relationship between Uber and its drivers is one of co-dependency”.