Opinion ID: 4512245
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Opportunity for Profit or Loss Depending on

Text: Managerial Skill As with the right to control, the District Court held that there was no genuine dispute as to another factor—the opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill. Again, we disagree with the District Court’s conclusion. The District Court, in this case, ruled that this factor strongly favored 20 independent contractor status because drivers could be strategic in determining when, where, and how to utilize the Driver App to obtain more lucrative trip requests and to generate more profits. Plaintiffs could also work for competitors and transport private clients. 9 However, other material facts reveal that there was and still is a genuine dispute. For example, Uber decides (1) the fare; (2) which driver receives a trip request; (3) whether to refund or 9 Indeed, the District Court stressed Plaintiffs’ ability “to make money elsewhere[.]” App. 35. Yet, based on our precedent, it is unclear whether this factor looks only toward opportunity for profit or loss within the alleged employment relationship or whether it also contemplates one’s ability to make money elsewhere—as such, external factors, such as the ability to earn outside revenue without terminating the Uber-driver relationship, may be irrelevant to the analysis. See Martin v. Selker Bros., Inc., 949 F.2d 1286, 1294 (3d Cir. 1991) (noting that “station operators had no meaningful opportunities for profit nor . . . loss, because the volume of business depended upon the location of each station rather than upon the managerial skills of the operators” but not discussing whether station operators had other jobs elsewhere); see also Saleem v. Corp. Transp. Grp., Ltd., 854 F.3d 131, 141–42 (2d Cir. 2017) (considering a worker’s ability to earn income from competitors and other sources, but emphasizing that “it is not what Plaintiffs could have done that counts, but as a matter of economic reality what they actually do that is dispositive.” (internal citation, alteration, and quotation marks omitted)). As this argument was not able to be developed by the parties, this, along with other material factual disputes, is ripe to be developed at trial. 21 cancel a passenger’s fare; and (4) a driver’s territory, which is subject to change without notice. Moreover, Plaintiffs can drive for competitors, but Uber may attempt to frustrate those who try, and most of the factors that determine an UberBLACK driver’s Uber-profit, like advertising and price setting, are also controlled by Uber. 10 Under the circumstances, we believe that a reasonable fact-finder could rule in favor of Plaintiffs. 11 Thus, summary judgment was inappropriate. 10 The District Court also considered “Plaintiffs investments in their own companies” as “relevant to the ‘profit and loss’ factor,” as weighing “heavily in favor of ‘independent contractor’ status.” App. 36. But, as stated earlier, parties frame this issue differently and assert different facts—again showing that summary judgment was inappropriate. For example, Uber asserts that Plaintiff Razak’s ITC Luxe Limousine Services, Inc. invested in up to sixteen vehicles and had as many as fourteen to seventeen drivers. And while Plaintiffs do not deny that they invested in their personal vehicles, which they use to provide UberBLACK rides, as discussed already, there is an inherent dispute regarding whether drivers are allowed to exercise judgment and select the farthest rides for the largest payment, as Uber determines which driver is given which rider. 11 We also note that the District Court did not interpret whether Plaintiffs could in actuality exercise any managerial skill while being “online” to increase their profits, only that they could 22