The Court concluded that the worker was not self-employed and therefore eligible for benefits. Along the way, the Court found that:
- "Uber controlled and directed the performance of Lowman’s services as a driver-for-hire;" and
- "Lowman was not engaged in an independently established business."
The Court expressly declined to rule on whether Uber was Lowman's employer, which would have huge unemployment compensation tax consequences for the company. That said, the Court's ruling in Lowman certainly doesn't bode well for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment