Case: 1:15-cv-11756 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
HORACE LEE and IMRAN SANDOZI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
RAISER, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:15-cv-11756
Judge:
Magistrate Judge:

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs Horace Lee and Imran Sandozi (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all
other individuals who have worked or are currently working in Illinois as drivers for Defendants
Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC (collectively, “Uber”), allege the following:
INTRODUCTION
1.

This case is about thousands of hard-working drivers struggling to get by while

Uber, a company valued at more than $50 billion, exploits them to bolster its bottom line.
Though it likes to call itself a technology company, Uber is a transportation company. Uber does
not sell software; it sells rides. Nonetheless, to increase profits, Uber uses its position of power
to mislead and take advantage of its drivers at every turn.
2.

Uber refuses to pay for its expenses and foists all expenses onto its employees.

The result is that its drivers cannot earn minimum wage, but less a living wage. Moreover, to
further squeeze profits from what should be expenses, Uber routinely misappropriates money
from their fares and shirks its financial commitments.

 Case: 1:15-cv-11756 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/15 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:2

3.

Uber falsifies the employment status of its drivers. Though Uber exercises near

complete control over its drivers, and many of its drivers work the equivalent of two full-time
jobs for Uber, it classifies drivers as “independent contractors,” rather than “employees.”
4.

Uber misrepresents how drivers are paid so that it can retain a larger percentage of

the fares that they generate. Uber tells customers that gratuity is included in the fares charged
when they use Uber’s electronic payment service. In reality, however, Uber fails to remit the
gratuity to its drivers.
5.

Plaintiffs bring this action to prevent Uber from continuing to ride roughshod over

its drivers’ contractual and statutory rights and to return to Uber’s drivers what is rightfully theirs
– what they earned.
6.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for Uber’s numerous violations

of the Illinois Compiled Statutes for its: (a) failure to provide prompt payment of wages to
drivers upon termination and resignation in violation of 820 ILCS 115/5; (2) misclassification of
its employees as independent contractors in violation of 820 ILCS 185; (3) failure to keep
required payroll records in violation of 820 ILCS 105/8; and (4) failure to pay minimum wages
in violation of 820 ILCS 105.
7.

Plaintiff also seeks to recover damages for Uber’s many common-law violations:

(a) tortious interference with prospective business relations; (b) breach of contract; (c)
promissory estoppel; (d) unjust enrichment; (e) conversion; (f) unfair competition; and (g) fraud.
PARTIES
8.

Plaintiff HORACE LEE is a citizen of the State of Illinois and a resident of Cook

County.

2

 Case: 1:15-cv-11756 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/15 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:3

9.

Plaintiff IMRAN SANDOZI is citizen of the State of Illinois and a resident of

Cook County.
10.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San

Francisco, California. Uber Technologies, Inc. is authorized to conduct business and does
conduct business throughout Illinois, including in Cook County.
11.

Raiser, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is a subsidiary of Uber

Technologies, Inc. and is its equivalent for purposes of this action. It is authorized to conduct
business and does conduct business throughout Illinois, including in Cook County.
12.

At all relevant times, Uber was an “employer” within the meaning of all

applicable statutes.
13.

At all relevant times, the work performed by Plaintiff and similarly situated

employees was directly essential to the business operated by Defendants.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1332(a) because Plaintiffs are residents of the State of Illinois and Defendants are
foreign corporations incorporated in the State of Delaware with principal offices in the State of
California. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
15.

Venue is proper in the Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as the

events and conduct giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A.

Plaintiffs Horace Lee and Imran Sandozi

16.

In 2015, Plaintiff Horace Lee began working for Uber as an UberX driver.

Plaintiff continues to work as a driver for Uber.

3

 Case: 1:15-cv-11756 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/15 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:4

17.

On average, Plaintiff drives between three (3) and twenty-five (25) hours per

18.

In August of 2013, Plaintiff Imran Sandozi began working for Uber as an UberX

week.

driver. Plaintiff continues to work as a driver for Uber.
19.

On average, Plaintiff drives between twenty-five (25) and thirty (30) hours per

20.

Uber compensates its drivers weekly. Uber takes 20% of the total fares and the

week.

driver receives the remaining 80%.
21.

Depending on the number of hours driven per week, Plaintiff Lee was

compensated between $15-$400 per week and incurred approximately $50 per week in expenses,
including gas, tolls, lease payments, and car repairs.
22.

Plaintiff Sandozi was compensated between $300-$350 per week and incurred

$100-$200 per week in expenses, including gas, tolls, lease payments and car repairs.
23.

At all times, Plaintiffs paid for their own expenses including gas, tolls, lease

payments and car repairs.
24.

On December 11, 2015, Defendant attempted to circulate a new Technology

Services Agreement to its drivers.
25.

On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff Sandozi opted out of Uber’s arbitration

agreement by sending an email to optout@uber.com as per the agreement.
26.

On December 22, 2015, Plaintiff Lee opted out of Uber’s arbitration agreement by

sending an email to optout@uber.com as per the agreement.
B.

Uber Increases its Profits by Deceiving its Drivers

4

 Case: 1:15-cv-11756 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/15 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:5

27.

Uber routinely misappropriates money from its drivers’ fares. Specifically, Uber

deducts a $1 “safe ride” fee from each fare, which is allegedly used to pay for background
checks, driver safety education, and development of safety features in its mobile application—an
expense that Uber, the employer, should pay.
28.

Uber routinely fails to honor its financial commitments to its drivers. For

example, Uber’s contract provides that drivers must be compensated $6.00 for cancelled fares,
but Uber failed to compensate Plaintiffs for a majority of cancelled fares. Uber also told
Plaintiffs that they would receive a credit card that would entitle him to a discount for fuel once
they completed 20 rides; however, no card was ever provided.
29.

Uber routinely misleads its drivers regarding the amount of money that they can

earn. For example, Uber told Plaintiffs that drivers can earn guaranteed money working at a
certain time. However, Plaintiffs did not earn the guaranteed hourly pay (over $20 per hour) that
Uber promised its drivers could earn.
C.

Uber Increases its Profits by Misappropriating its Drivers’ Tips.

30.

During the course of their employment, Plaintiffs did not receive gratuities.

31.

Uber told customers, on its website and in marketing materials, that gratuity is

included in the total cost of the fare for the car service and that there is no need to tip the driver.
32.

Uber intentionally misrepresented to customers that gratuity was included in the

cost of its fares and thus instructed passengers not to leave a tip in addition to the amount of the
fare.
33.

Uber also misrepresented to Plaintiffs, via its training video, that tips would be

added to their wages. Uber told Plaintiffs not to ask for or accept tips because passengers would

5

 Case: 1:15-cv-11756 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/15 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:6

tip based on service by selecting a percentage on the Uber application, then the tips would be
passed on to the drivers.
34.

Plaintiffs were further instructed that if a passenger offers a gratuity, they are to

refuse it, which they do.
35.

Despite Uber’s misrepresentations to customers that “there’s no need to tip” and

its misrepresentations to Plaintiffs and other drivers that tips would be added to their wages,
Plaintiffs and other drivers did not receive their gratuities.
36.

As a result of Uber’s misrepresentations to customers that gratuity is included in

the cost of its service and there is no need to tip drivers, Plaintiffs and other Uber drivers have
been deprived of payments to which they are entitled.
D.
37.

Uber Increases its Profits by Misclassifying its Drivers as Independent
Contractors.
Uber uniformly misclassifies its drivers, including Plaintiffs, as independent

contractors when they are employees.
38.

Uber is deeply involved in marketing its transportation services, qualifying and

selecting drivers, regulating and monitoring drivers’ performance (including disciplining or
terminating those who fail to meet standards), and setting prices.
39.

Uber exercises substantial control over the qualification and selection of its

drivers. Before working for Uber, applicants must first complete Uber’s application process,
including a background check, city knowledge exam, vehicle inspection, and personal interview.
40.

Uber exercises considerable control and supervision over the work details of its

drivers - the manner, methods, and means of its drivers’ provision of transportation services. For
example, upon signing an agreement to work for Uber, new drivers must watch a video
demonstrating how Uber wants them to interact with customers. Drivers are even instructed on

6

 Case: 1:15-cv-11756 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/15 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:7

such simple tasks as how to pick up a customer with their car. In short, Uber retains all
necessary control over its drivers’ performance.
41.

Uber controls the instrumentalities of Plaintiff’s job. For example, drivers cannot

use a car that is more than ten (10) years old and Uber controls its drivers’ car registrations.
42.

Uber monitors its drivers to ensure compliance with Uber’s quality control

standards. All drivers for Uber, including Plaintiffs, must maintain an average customer star
evaluation of at least 4.5 out of a possible 5 stars. Instructions on how to improve one’s star
rating are given to drivers who fall below this average in any given week. If a driver fails to
maintain an average customer rating of 4.5, Uber deactivates the driver’s ability to use the
application to pick up customers, an action tantamount to terminating the driver “at will,” a
hallmark of an employee-employer relationship. Thus, monitoring through rider ratings is an
effective mechanism for Uber to enforce its standards.
43.

Uber also unilaterally sets the fares - with no negotiation or input from drivers -

for all rides, and drivers are required to charge the cost determined solely by Uber. Uber then
bills customers for the entire amount before remitting a portion of the fare to its drivers. Uber
pays its drivers weekly.
44.

Uber claims a proprietary interest in its riders, which further demonstrates that

Uber acts as more than a mere intermediary between riders and drivers. For instance, Uber
prohibits its drivers from answering rider queries about booking future rides outside the Uber
application or otherwise soliciting Uber riders.
45.

As a result of the intentional misclassification of its employees, Uber failed to

provide Plaintiffs and other similarly aggrieved driver employees with itemized wage statements,
minimum wages, and reimbursement for necessary expenses (e.g., gas, tolls, car repairs, and

7

 Case: 1:15-cv-11756 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/15 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:8

lease payments). Uber also failed to keep accurate payroll records evidencing Plaintiffs’ and
other drivers’ hours worked and wages paid and unlawfully retained gratuities owed to Plaintiffs
and other drivers, despite representing to customers and its drivers that gratuity is included in the
total cost of the service.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
46.

Plaintiffs bring this class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, as defined:
All individuals who have worked or are currently working for Uber as
drivers

within the State of Illinois.
47.

Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and

discovery, the foregoing definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or
amended complaint. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and its affiliates, parents,
subsidiaries, employees, officers, agents, and directors; government entities or agencies, its
affiliates, employees, officers, agents, and directors in their governmental capacities; any judicial
officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff;
and class counsel.
48.

This action is properly maintainable as a class action. The proposed Class is so

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
49.

Plaintiffs are members of the Class they seek to represent.

50.

There are questions of law or fact common to the Class, which predominate over

any questions affecting only individual members. Among the questions of law and fact common
to the class include but are not limited to:

8

 Case: 1:15-cv-11756 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/15 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:9

a.

Whether Defendants have charged customers a gratuity for class members’

services;
b.

Whether Defendants failed to distribute the total proceeds of those gratuities to

the class members;
c.

Whether Defendants have informed customers that gratuity is included in the

price of the Uber service and so there is no need to tip the drivers;
d.

Whether class members have suffered damages based upon Uber’s representation

to customers that there is no need to tip the drivers;
e.

Whether Defendants improperly classified class members as independent

contractors rather than employees;
f.

Whether class members have been required to pay the expenses of their

employment, including the cost of a vehicle, repairs, gas and tolls;
g.

Whether Uber unlawfully denied compensation to Class members; and

h.

Whether Class members were denied employee benefits as required by law.

51.

The representative Plaintiffs can adequately represent the Class. No conflict of

interest exists between the representatives and the Class members or with respect to the claims
for relief requested.
52.

The claims of the proposed lead Plaintiff are typical of those of the proposed

Class because they are based on the same legal theories and arise out of the same business
practices and course of conduct by Uber.
53.

The proposed lead Plaintiffs and their chosen attorneys are familiar with the

subject matter of the lawsuit and have full knowledge of the allegations contained in this
complaint so as to be able to assist in its prosecution. In addition, the representative’s attorneys

9

 Case: 1:15-cv-11756 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/15 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:10

are competent in the relevant areas of the law and have sufficient experience to vigorously
represent the Class. Furthermore, the resources available to counsel ensure that the litigation will
not be hampered by a lack of financial capacity. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have sufficient financial
resources and are willing to absorb the costs of the litigation.
54.

The proposed class action is the surest way to fairly and expeditiously compensate

so large a number of injured persons; to keep the courts from becoming paralyzed by hundreds,
perhaps thousands of repetitive cases, and to reduce transaction costs so that the injured Class
can obtain the most compensation possible, class treatment presents a superior mechanism for
fairly resolving similar issues and claims without repetitious and wasteful litigation.
55.

Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Rule 23 because common

questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual members
of the Class, and because a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of this litigation. The Class members have been damaged and are
entitled to recovery as a result of Defendants' common and discriminatory policies and
practices.
COUNT I
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS
56.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, repeat and reallege all

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
57.

Defendants' website sets forth:

58.

In reality, Uber collected gratuities and failed to remit them to the drivers.

10

 Case: 1:15-cv-11756 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/15 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:11

59.

Based on past practices of failing to remit gratuities, Uber knew that it was going

to retain the tips for itself when it misrepresented that tips would be passed on to the drivers.
60.

Defendants' conduct, in failing to remit the total proceeds of gratuities to drivers

constitutes unlawful tortious interference with the contractual and/or advantageous relationship
that exists between the drivers and customers, under state common law.
61.

Defendants' conduct, informing customers “there is no need to tip” constitutes

unlawful tortious interference with the contractual and/or advantageous relationship that exists
between the drivers and customers, under state common law.
62.

Were it not for Uber’s misrepresentations regarding gratuities, riders would have

left a tip for drivers as is customary in the car-service industry.
63.

Uber’s conduct caused damage to Plaintiffs and other drivers.
COUNT II
BREACH OF CONTRACT

64.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, repeat and reallege all

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
65.

Defendants' conduct constitutes a breach of contract under state common law.

Defendants have an implied contract with Plaintiffs and the drivers to remit to them the total
proceeds of all gratuities.
66.

Plaintiffs and other drivers are third-party beneficiaries of customers’ implied

contract with Uber that tips would be remitted to drivers, the terms of which were incorporated
by reference from certain advertisements or statements Uber made on various webpages. By
entering into this agreement, customers intended to secure a financial benefit for drivers,
including Plaintiffs, in the form of gratuity and to act directly for the drivers’ benefit.

11

 Case: 1:15-cv-11756 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/15 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:12

67.

Uber withheld and continues to withhold gratuities given by customers to Uber

drivers and/or gratuities that are incorporated into the set fare.
68.

Uber contracted with Plaintiffs and other drivers to pay surge fares, to provide a

credit card entitling drivers to a discount on gas, and to pay $6.00 for cancelled fares.
69.

Uber has failed to pay surge fares, to provide a credit card entitling drivers to a

discount on gas, and to pay $5.00 for cancelled fares.
70.

Uber’s conduct damaged Plaintiff and other drivers.
COUNT III
UNJUST ENRICHMENT

71.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, repeat and reallege all

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
72.

Defendants unlawfully retained gratuities and surge fares promised to Plaintiff

and other drivers and did not reimburse expenses.
73.

Uber obtained these benefits from Plaintiffs and drivers by making material

misrepresentations and taking advantage of them.
74.

As a result, Defendants have been unjustly enriched.

75.

Uber’s conduct damaged Plaintiffs and other drivers.

76.

Plaintiffs and the class members are entitled to restitution for their full share of

the proceeds of the improperly retained gratuities and employment related expenses.
COUNT IV
CONVERSION
77.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, repeat and reallege all

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

12

 Case: 1:15-cv-11756 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/15 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:13

78.

Plaintiffs and other drivers had the right to possession of tips, surge fares,

cancellation fees, and money spent for expenses.
79.

Uber interfered with Plaintiffs and the other drivers’ right to their property by

refusing to relinquish the property to them. Instead, Uber retained the property for its own
benefit.
80.

The converted property was personal.

For example, tips were specifically

earmarked for Plaintiffs and other drivers.
81.

Uber’s conduct damaged Plaintiff and other drivers. Plaintiffs were harmed and

class members are entitled to restitution for their full share of proceeds, as well as treble damages.
COUNT V
UNFAIR COMPETITION
82.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, repeat and reallege all

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
83.

Defendants' activities have caused confusion with, or have been mistaken for,

Plaintiffs' activities in the mind of the public, or are likely to cause such confusion or mistake; or
Defendants have acted unfairly in the State of Illinois in some manner.
84.

Plaintiffs' property rights, specifically gratuities, cancellation fees, surge fares and

expenses, were misappropriated by Defendants for their commercial advantage.
85.

Defendants’ conduct damaged Plaintiffs and other drivers.
COUNT VI
FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION

86.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, repeat and reallege all

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

13

 Case: 1:15-cv-11756 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/15 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:14

87.

Defendants made material representations of fact, that the Plaintiffs would receive

gratuities, surge fares and cancellation fees.
88.

These misrepresentations were material because they affected Plaintiff and other

drivers’ decisions to continue driving for Uber.
89.

Uber knew at the time it made these misrepresentations—or, at the very least,

made the misrepresentations recklessly—that it would not pass along these monies to Plaintiffs
and other drivers based on its past practices of not doing so.
90.

Plaintiffs and other drivers reasonably and justifiably relied on these

misrepresentations and continued to drive for Uber because Uber was their employer and the
party responsible for overseeing the payment of these monies.
91.

Uber’s conduct damaged Plaintiff and other drivers.
COUNT VII
VIOLATIONS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS LABOR LAW

92.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, repeat and reallege all

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
93.

Despite the existence of an agreement indicating Plaintiff is an independent

contractor, the treatment of Plaintiff and control exercised by Uber indicate that Plaintiff is an
employee.
94.

Accordingly, Uber’s actions violate the Illinois Compiled Statutes (“ICS”).

Plaintiffs seeks damages violations of the following sections of the ICS:
a. failure to provide prompt payment of wages to driver employees upon termination and
resignation in violation of 820 ILCS 115/5;
b.failure to keep required payroll records in violation of 820 ILCS 105/8;
c. failure to pay minimum wages in violation of 820 ILCS 105 et seq.; and

14

 Case: 1:15-cv-11756 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/15 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:15

d.misclassification of its employees as independent contractors in violation of 820 ILCS
185.
95.

As a result of Uber’s violations, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable

attorneys’ fees and damages of 2% of the amount of any such underpayments for each month
following the date of payment during which such underpayments remain unpaid pursuant to 820
ILCS 105/12, 820 ILCS 105/14 and 820 ILCS 185.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of the proposed class, requests
relief against the Defendants as follows:
a. An award of damages, including compensatory, punitive, treble damages,
liquidated damages and back pay, in an amount to be determined at trial;
b. Notice to the Class of the action;
c. An injunction against Defendants prohibiting Defendants from engaging in each
of the unlawful practices, policies and patterns set forth herein;
d. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action;
e. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and
f. An Order requiring that Defendants return to Plaintiffs any gratuities and any
other funds wrongfully kept by Defendants;
g. Such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, demands a trial by jury on all
claims so triable.

15

 Case: 1:15-cv-11756 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/29/15 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:16

Dated: Edwardsville, Illinois
December 29, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
/s/ Eric Jackstadt
___________________________
Eric Jackstadt
103 West Vandalia Street, Suite 125
Edwardsville, IL 62025
(212) 397-1000
IMBESI LAW P.C.
/s/ Brittany Weiner
_________________________
Brittany Weiner (pro hac vice pending)
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
New York, NY 10123
(212) 736-0007 (Phone)
(212) 658-9177 (Fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
-OSTOJIC & SCUDDER, LLC
/s/ John Ostojic
___________________________
John Ostojic
Donald Gallagher
332 South Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1000
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 913-0860 (Phone)
(312) 913-0868 (Fax)
Local Counsel

16