Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc.
Case Number:
3:15-cv-05128
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Multi Party Litigation:
Class Action
Judge:
Firms
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
February 09, 2024
Grubhub Driver's Standing Woes Expose Calif. Litigation Quirk
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
Grubhub Worker Can't Seek PAGA Penalties Without Suffering
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
PAGA Penalties Not Limited To Grubhub Worker's Tenure
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
Driver Says Grubhub Can't Trim PAGA Claims From Wage Suit
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
Grubhub Can't Piecemeal Driver's Individual Claims
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 Wants 9th Circ. To Weigh In On Classification Ruling
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
Grubhub Driver Is Employee, Not Contractor, Calif. Judge Says
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
Contractor Test Doesn't Apply To Grubhub Expenses Claim
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
Grubhub Says Driver Is Not Employee Under Dynamex Test
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.
-
January 27, 2022
Grubhub Driver Says He Is An Employee Under Dynamex
A former Grubhub driver asked a California federal court to rule that he was the company's employee under the Dynamex three-prong test, which the Ninth Circuit recently said retroactively applies to his case alleging he was misclassified as an independent contractor and denied certain benefits.