[pbhjpbhj]

Is it really material - except in the loosest sense - that a food delivery driver lied about a Fine Arts course?

That aside, reading the linked court documents that contract has major problems. It requires deliverers to sign up for a weekly block and to be available (except under extenuating circumstances) for work, and not refuse work, during that time. That sounds like being a part-time employee to me, regardless of the preceding prose specifically disclaiming employee-employer status (why would they need that I wonder!), and saying the driver was free to work other gigs. If you're free to work other gigs how can you not often have to refuse jobs?

I'm not saying Lawson's been harmed, I didn't read enough to know, but that contract looks like it's demanding exclusive employment for a particular company within a given time range; that looks terrible for GrubHub from where I'm sitting.

[twblalock]

It's material to the extent that the judge does not trust the guy. There are other examples of dishonesty in the ruling too. It seems like he may have lied to GrubHub and intentionally got himself hired and then fired as a pretext for a lawsuit. Because he was provably dishonest about several important things, nothing he says can be trusted, including statements he makes about his interactions with GrubHub.

The guy was working other jobs, including for other gig delivery companies, at the same time he was delivering for GrubHub. It was clearly a flexible arrangement for him, and GrubHub was not able to control his activities much or prevent him from working for other companies. That's probably what decided the case.

If you were a lawyer looking for a sympathetic plaintiff to fight for employee status at gig economy companies, this guy is a pretty bad choice. First of all, he can't be trusted. Even worse, he was clearly benefitting from the gig economy in exactly the way that gig-economy proponents say people benefit -- flexible hours, the ability to pursue other work, etc.

[saas_co_de]

> that contract looks like it's demanding exclusive employment for a particular company within a given time range

The ruling specifically says that this is not the case:

"The driver is not precluded from doing business with others and Grubhub does not have the right to restrict the driver from being concurrently or subsequently engaged in performing delivery services for other companies, even those that compete with Grubhub."

I am actually pretty impressed with the efforts Grubhub was making for compliance here.

"The driver may (1) lease insulated delivery bags from Grubhub in exchange for wearing Grubhub t-shirts and hats"

Since requiring someone to wear a uniform or use your logo is a strong sign of an employment relationship they make wearing the uniform consideration for a separate contract. Clever.

[maxerickson]

It's sort of generous to call the imaginary "second" relationship an effort at compliance.

[bonesss]

> "The driver may (1) lease insulated delivery bags from Grubhub in exchange for wearing Grubhub t-shirts and hats"

So if another source of bags were founds the Grubhub contractors could be wearing clothes that advertise a competing service, or is loaded with restaurant sponsorships, to make more money? Hrmmm...