McGillis v. Department of Economic Opportunity
Florida District Court of Appeal
210 So. 3d 220 (2017)
- Written by Galina Abdel Aziz , JD
Facts
McGillis (plaintiff) worked as a driver for Uber, a technology company that connected drivers with customers seeking transportation services. Uber drivers agreed to a contractual provision that disclaimed an employer-employee status for independent-contractor status. McGillis used his own car, set his own hours, determined where he worked, and determined whether he would work at all. Uber paid drivers a percentage of the fare charged to passengers through direct deposit each week. Uber provided insurance for commercial operation of a vehicle, but it did not provide medical insurance, vacation, or retirement pay. Each year Uber drivers received Form 1099, an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) form used for reporting payments to independent contractors. McGillis provided similar services for another technology company called Lyft. Uber revoked McGillis’s access to its technology based on alleged violations of the user privacy policy. McGillis filed a claim for reemployment assistance. The Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) found that McGillis was an Uber employee. Uber appealed the decision to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) (defendant), which adopted an order reversing the DOR’s decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Logue, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.