3 ms·

A few things to note about this decision: It's a 3 to 2 decision from one of four mid-level appellate courts in NY's state court system. Bloomberg cited the or

A few things to note about this decision: It's a 3 to 2 decision from one of four mid-level appellate courts in NY's state court system. Bloomberg cited the original opinion but didn't link to it, so I have no idea how impassioned the dissent was or if the majority's opinion is well reasoned as applied to Postmates' model specifically. I wouldn't assume that all gig economy companies are alike in the legal particulars. Leave to appeal to NY's top-level court could be applied for and granted, but if it's not, this will be binding precedent at the trial level in NY's third judicial department, which covers much of NY state's land area except Western NY and the areas in and around NYC. Other NY trial courts have to follow the appellate court rulings from their own judicial department, but if none exists, they have to follow other departments' appellate rulings like this one. If a split develops among judicial departments, the top-level NY court might make a ruling binding statewide.

schoen 8y ago
> Bloomberg cited the original opinion but didn't link to it I found it at http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2018/525233.pdf http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2018/52523... if you'd like to have a look; this includes both the opinion and the dissent.
- logicallee 8y ago
  This is a short decision (6 pages including the dissent). The dissent is not impassioned, but rather starts with dryly reciting the facts, then says: >Although the record contains factors that could support a contrary conclusion, including that couriers are not required to wear any uniform, can work for competitors and determine the route for delivery, substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's finding that sufficient supervision, direction and control was exercised by Postmates to establish an employment relationship. It also specifically points to differences between this and another case: >Our recent decision in Matter of Courto (SCA Enterprises-Commissioner of Labor) (159 AD3d 1240 [2018]) does not, as Postmates contends, compel a different outcome. All of these cases are fact specific and there are several key factual distinctions between this case and Courto that substantiate the Board's finding of an employment relationship here, but not in Courto. It then dryly recites the facts in that other case. So this absolutely doesn't seem like the kind of thing that sets a "precedent". It is not really couched in landmark language. Read for yourself at parent's link - the ruling and dissent are together 5 and half pages. It's really quite specific and doesn't seem to generalize at all. Note: not a lawyer, not well-versed in this area of law.

schoen 8y ago

> Bloomberg cited the original opinion but didn't link to it I found it at http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2018/525233.pdf http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2018/52523... if you'd like to have a look; this includes both the opinion and the dissent.

logicallee 8y ago
This is a short decision (6 pages including the dissent). The dissent is not impassioned, but rather starts with dryly reciting the facts, then says: >Although the record contains factors that could support a contrary conclusion, including that couriers are not required to wear any uniform, can work for competitors and determine the route for delivery, substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's finding that sufficient supervision, direction and control was exercised by Postmates to establish an employment relationship. It also specifically points to differences between this and another case: >Our recent decision in Matter of Courto (SCA Enterprises-Commissioner of Labor) (159 AD3d 1240 [2018]) does not, as Postmates contends, compel a different outcome. All of these cases are fact specific and there are several key factual distinctions between this case and Courto that substantiate the Board's finding of an employment relationship here, but not in Courto. It then dryly recites the facts in that other case. So this absolutely doesn't seem like the kind of thing that sets a "precedent". It is not really couched in landmark language. Read for yourself at parent's link - the ruling and dissent are together 5 and half pages. It's really quite specific and doesn't seem to generalize at all. Note: not a lawyer, not well-versed in this area of law.