I read an interesting article on Forbes that deals with an issue I’ve encountered several times before – the definition of a company employee versus an independent contractor.  Two class action lawsuits filed in California allege that Uber and Lyft drivers were “employees” of their respective companies, and not independent contractors, as the two defendants had insisted.

Traditionally, an independent contractor receives a fee for the services he/she performs, but otherwise run their own business as they please.  In contrast, an employee works for an employer who pays him/her a wage in exchange for a bundle of services that are subject to the employer’s close supervision.  Interestingly, under current law, the independent contractor arrangement is not highly regulated, whereas every aspect of the standard employment contract is subject to considerable government regulation.

The plaintiffs in these cases claim that they are in fact employees of Uber and Lyft, which would mean that they are entitled to receive reimbursement for their operating expenses, including both ordinary maintenance and the cost of fuel. 

You can read the complete article here and learn more about the potential consequences of these employment classifications – http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardepstein/2015/03/16/uber-and-lyft-in-california-how-to-use-employment-law-to-wreck-an-industry/.