{"id":476,"date":"2024-06-03T12:42:14","date_gmt":"2024-06-03T12:42:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/?p=476"},"modified":"2024-08-15T20:31:11","modified_gmt":"2024-08-15T20:31:11","slug":"la-comision-laboral-de-california-tambien-determino-inexistencia-del-vinculo-laboral-entre-uber-y-los-conductores-que-utilizan-la-app-usa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/la-comision-laboral-de-california-tambien-determino-inexistencia-del-vinculo-laboral-entre-uber-y-los-conductores-que-utilizan-la-app-usa\/","title":{"rendered":"The California Labour Commission Also Determines That An Employment Relationship Does Not Exist Between Uber And Uber Drivers (USA)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On the 8th of May, 2019, in the case \u201c<em>UBER Technologies, Inc. et al. vs Y.E<\/em>\u201d, (11-42020CT), the Californian Court affirmed that an employment relationship does not exist between Uber and Uber drivers. This ruling was based on the fact that Uber does not have the right to control drivers (a right an employer would have); that the claimant was an independent contractor, rather than an employee; that the claimant had various vehicles which he subleased to other drivers; and that the deactivation of the app did not constitute a \u201cwrongful dismissal\u201d but a contractual termination on legitimate grounds - such as the reputational harm to Uber. Equally, the Court noted that there still existed the possibility of regaining access to Uber\u2019s services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:60px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-interactive=\"core\/file\" class=\"wp-block-file\"><object data-wp-bind--hidden=\"!state.hasPdfPreview\" hidden class=\"wp-block-file__embed\" data=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/California-Uber-tech-et-al-v.-Y.E.pdf\" type=\"application\/pdf\" style=\"width:100%;height:600px\" aria-label=\"Embed of California - Uber tech et al v. Y.E..\"><\/object><a id=\"wp-block-file--media-af6a4a98-1d57-4d05-ae6a-c483afd6c718\" href=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/California-Uber-tech-et-al-v.-Y.E.pdf\">California &#8211; Uber tech et al v. Y.E.<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/California-Uber-tech-et-al-v.-Y.E.pdf\" class=\"wp-block-file__button wp-element-button\" download aria-describedby=\"wp-block-file--media-af6a4a98-1d57-4d05-ae6a-c483afd6c718\">Descarga<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:60px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-media-text is-vertically-aligned-center has-background\" style=\"background-color:#f9f9f9;grid-template-columns:15% auto\"><figure class=\"wp-block-media-text__media\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"683\" src=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-175-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-1547 size-full\" srcset=\"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-175-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-175-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-175-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/uber-175.jpg 1200w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure><div class=\"wp-block-media-text__content\">\n<p class=\"has-small-font-size\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.freepik.es\/vector-gratis\/apreton-manos-dos-socios-comerciales_9176945.htm#fromView=search&amp;page=2&amp;position=9&amp;uuid=551271e1-9461-408f-9ef2-99b47048a400\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">&#8211; Cr\u00e9ditos de imagen utilizada<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>En la causa \u201cUBER Technologies, Inc. et al. vs Y.E\u201d, (11-42020CT), 23\/11\/2016, la Corte de California afirm\u00f3 que no existe relaci\u00f3n laboral entre Uber y los conductores porque, entre otras cosas, Uber no tiene derecho a controlar a los conductores [&hellip;]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[5,19,23,21],"tags":[106,101,84,110],"class_list":["post-476","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-jurisprudencia","category-jurisprudencia-laboral-internacional","category-legalidad","category-temas","tag-derecho-a-trabajar","tag-inexistencia-de-relacion-laboral","tag-legalidad","tag-plataforma-de-intermediacion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/476","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=476"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/476\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3356,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/476\/revisions\/3356"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=476"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=476"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ubereslegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=476"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}