Misclassification Mistake Leads to $19M Payout by Lyft
By

It’s a wildly astronomical number, and we’re not trying to scare anyone – but a recent case from New Jersey shows that employee misclassifications can be a costly mistake.
The state of New Jersey recently recovered more than $19 million against the ridesharing service Lyft, which it accused of wrongly misclassifying more than 100,000 of its drivers as independent contractors instead of employees.
It’s a wakeup call for any employer that is even the slightest bit lax about taking the time to properly classify all of its workers.
The massive payment was announced last month by the New Jersey Department of Labor and the state’s attorney general.
State: Audit Revealed Misclassification
The seeds for the payout were sown when a number of Lyft drivers filed claims for unemployment insurance and disability benefits. Those claims triggered a state audit, which revealed that Lyft had not made any contributions to the corresponding state funds on the drivers’ behalf.
The audit covered a four-year period beginning in 2014. Following its review of the company’s books and records for that timeframe, the state slapped Lyft with an assessment of more than $10.8 million in past due contributions to the proper funds. It also tacked on another $8.5 million in penalties and interest.
Lyft initially contested the state department of labor’s findings. As a result, the case was transferred to the state’s Office of Administrative Law for a scheduled hearing.
Lyft Drops Appeal, Pays Entire Misclassification Amount
Though it contested the findings, Lyft paid the $10.8 million to stop interest from continuing to accrue. Then, in August of this year — and just days before the scheduled hearing — it withdrew its appeal and paid the remaining balance.
“We will not allow businesses to exploit workers by misclassifying them, stripping employees of essential benefits and avoiding their responsibility to support programs that protect our workforce,” said New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin in a press release. “This practice undermines our strong labor laws.”
Employees Enjoy Greater Protections
It can be more convenient and cost-effective for employers to utilize independent contractors rather than employees to get work done. Employees are entitled to a number of benefits that independent contractors do not receive, including:
- payment of a minimum wage
- overtime pay
- unemployment benefits
- workers’ compensation coverage
- family leave, and
- worker safety law protections
Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with using independent contractors instead of employees. The problem for employers occurs when a misclassification occurs, when they label workers as independent contractors, but the relationship between the parties shows they are employer and employee.
Employee or Independent Contractor? How to Tell
The federal Department of Labor has addressed the issue of employee misclassification, advising that the question of whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor is to be answered “by looking at the economic realities of the worker’s relationship with the employer.”
The question essentially is this: Is the worker in business for himself, or is he economically dependent on the employer for work?
The DOL also identifies factors that should be considered in determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee. These factors include:
- the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss
- relative investments by the worker and the employer
- the degree of permanence of the work relationship
- the nature and degree of control that is exercised by the employer over the worker
- whether the work is integral to the employer’s business, and
- the level of skill and initiative that is needed to do the work.
Though none of the factors by themselves establishes employment status, here are some signs tending to indicate that a worker is an employee:
- The employer provides all of the worker’s tools and equipment.
- The employer provides office space for the worker.
- The worker performs services for a single employer over a continuous period of several years.
- The employer closely supervises scheduling and the performance of the work.
- The work performed is “critical, necessary, or central” to the company’s business.
- The worker does not use specialized skills to get the job done.
“New Jersey will continue to take strong action to stop misclassification and hold violators accountable,” Platkin added. “As our economy evolves, we remain steadfast in safeguarding workers’ rights.”
Further Reading
FMLA Intermittent Leave: 8 Questions HR Asks Most
Intermittent FMLA leave is a giant thorn in the side of HR people everywhere. But not all intermittent leave requests are equal. Here’s a look at some of the most common scenarios, and how to handle them.
Unpaid Pre-Shift Work Costs New Jersey Employer $725K
A New Jersey drywall installer must pay $725,000 after failing to pay 48 workers overtime for pre-shift work performed while they waited for transportation to job sites. The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division found P & B Partitions Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime rules. The company also refused […]
Connecticut Joins States Regulating Workplace AI: 7 Compliance Steps
Connecticut is putting employers on notice over workplace AI. Effective Oct. 1, 2026, SB 5 clarifies that Connecticut employers facing a discrimination claim can’t blame the artificial intelligence (AI) tools they use to make hiring, promotion, discipline or termination decisions. Other changes that kicked in the same day: And there’s more coming. The law’s second […]
USCIS Plans to Abolish 60-Day Grace Period for Certain Nonimmigrant Workers
On Sept. 11, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that, if adopted, would eliminate the 60-day grace period currently granted to most nonimmigrant workers in H-1B, H-1B1, E-1, E-2, E-3, L-1, O-1 or TN status who abruptly lose their positions. The grace period has been in place since […]
Pa. Court Sets 3-Year Deadline for Minimum Wage Act Claims
Pennsylvania employers face a three-year window for employees to sue over unpaid minimum wages or overtime under state law, rather than the six years a trial court previously allowed. The ruling came in a case involving 20 pharmacy employees seeking overtime for work done from 2017 to 2019. The employers argued the claims were filed […]
Hidden Payroll Rounding Risk: Unpaid Pre-Shift Time Under Scrutiny
Required pre-shift tasks – and whether employees are paid for them – are at the center of a former hospital nurse’s wage dispute. Chestnut Hill Hospital required nurses to change into surgical scrubs by 7 a.m. for a morning huddle. Pamela McBride sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging the hospital didn’t pay her […]