SAN FRANCISCO — The $84 million settlement over Uber’s use of independent contractors bears his name and signature, but on Monday named plaintiff Douglas O’Connor slammed the deal as “unjust” and “disastrous.”
Asking the court to set the settlement aside, O’Connor accused his lawyer of obtaining his signature under false pretenses after failing to consult him about the terms of the deal — which could grow to $100 million if Uber has a successful IPO. Monday’s filing is the latest in a string of attacks against the settlement, which would provide cash payouts of several thousand dollars for full-time Uber drivers, but failed to secure them employee status.
“Having now had the full opportunity to review the O’Connor settlement agreement, it is apparent that under the agreement, Uber drivers are being sold out and shortchanged by billions of dollars while sacrificing the determination of their classification as employees,” O’Connor wrote in a court filing objecting to the settlement.
O’Connor also broke ties with the drivers’ attorney, Boston-based Shannon Liss-Riordan, who has become well known in her sweeping attempts to force Silicon Valley startups to provide employee benefits to their on-demand drivers and couriers. In her place, O’Connor brought on a team that includes celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos, known for representing high-profile clients such as Michael Jackson, actress Winona Ryder and singer Chris Brown.
Liss-Riordan denied O’Connor’s accusations in an email Monday.
“I am limited in what I can say about a former client, but the things he is saying are simply not true,” she wrote. “Unfortunately, this happens sometimes in legal practice.”
Liss-Riordan says she kept O’Connor in the loop during settlement talks even though she was under no legal obligation to do so. While his name was on the lawsuit, he was not certified by the court as an official class representative.
An Uber spokesman declined to comment on O’Connor’s objection.
Since the settlement was signed last month, dozens of Uber drivers have filed objections with the court, complaining that it provides no meaningful compensation. Several groups of California attorneys also have asked the court to kick Liss-Riordan off the case, accusing her of acting in her own best interest and not that of the drivers.
New information released earlier this month revealed drivers could have been entitled to $730 million in reimbursement for work expenses alone if the case hadn’t settled.
Liss-Riordan, who stands to make up to $25 million in legal fees if the deal is approved, has argued the litigation had a powerful impact because it prompted other Silicon Valley on-demand companies to classify their workers as employees in order to avoid similar lawsuits. She says she settled to avoid the risk of losing at trial, or of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit gutting the case by prohibiting the drivers from litigating as a class.
Liss-Riordan suggested the lawyers trying to displace her have their own financial motives.
“These lawyers try to jump in on big settlements and make some noise so they can claim a piece of the action,” she wrote in an email.
Ben Meiselas, one of O’Connor’s new Los Angeles-based lawyers, wants to scrap the settlement and take the case to trial. He says hundreds of unhappy drivers have contacted his team over the past week.
“They feel that they’ve been sold out for literally pennies,” he said in an interview Monday. “And for what? To not even have the employee classification issue addressed?”
While it’s rare for a named plaintiff to object to the deal his or her lawyers have crafted, this isn’t the first time it has happened. Programmer Michael Devine, a named plaintiff in an antitrust lawsuit accusing Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe of illegally agreeing not to poach each other’s employees, made the same move in 2014. The judge in that case rejected the $324.5 million deal in that case as too low, prompting a new offer of $415 million.
But when the court evaluates the Uber settlement next month, it won’t necessarily give extra weight to O’Connor’s objection, said San Francisco attorney Daniel Hutchinson, who represents employees in workplace disputes.
“Everyone in the class should be on equal footing,” he said, “and one person’s voice shouldn’t count for more or less.”
Marisa Kendall covers startups and venture capital. Contact her at 408-920-5009. Follow her at twitter.com/marisakendall.
