July 24, 2024
A former Grubhub driver didn't work for the food delivery company after California passed Proposition 22 and therefore he can't pursue claims under the state's Private Attorneys General Act, a California federal judge ruled.
February 09, 2024
California's federal courts have tough standing requirements that may weaken a worker's ability to pursue Labor Code penalties on others' behalf, potentially softening a case that could have stung more if it were in state court, experts told Law360.
February 02, 2024
An ex-Grubhub Inc. food delivery worker cannot pursue Private Attorneys General Act penalties for overtime wage and expense reimbursement violations he did not personally suffer, a California federal judge ruled.
September 11, 2023
A worker is not limited to collecting penalties for California Labor Code violations under the Private Attorneys General Act only for offenses that occurred during their tenure, a federal judge ruled Monday.
July 21, 2023
A Grubhub driver urged a federal judge to preserve representative claims brought under California's Private Attorneys General Act in his suit alleging the delivery company misclassified and underpaid workers, saying state law does not support Grubhub's attempt to narrow the pool of workers he can sue on behalf of.
May 31, 2023
A Grubhub driver's individual wage claims in a misclassification suit are too connected to his representative ones and can't be separated, a California federal judge said, rejecting the company's bid to enter a judgment on them.
April 24, 2023
Grubhub called on a California federal court to allow an immediate appeal of a ruling that a delivery worker qualified as an employee rather than an independent contractor, arguing that the decision was built on unsettled law.
March 31, 2023
A California federal judge on Thursday held that a former Grubhub Inc. delivery driver should have been classified as an employee, not a contractor, under Golden State law, and held that he therefore was underpaid under wage law.
September 14, 2022
A California federal judge found that a Grubhub delivery worker could not employ a lenient employee classification test to score a pretrial win on expense reimbursement because that test only applied to wage claims stemming from state wage orders.
May 13, 2022
A former Grubhub driver cannot be considered an employee and reimbursed for expenses under the Dynamex ruling's classification test, the company said, telling a California federal judge the test applies only to wage laws and the driver is litigating reimbursement claims.