Vega v. Postmates Inc.

Citation162 A.D.3d 1337,78 N.Y.S.3d 810
Decision Date21 June 2018
Docket Number525233
Parties In the Matter of the Claim of Luis A. VEGA, Respondent. v. POSTMATES INC., Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

162 A.D.3d 1337
78 N.Y.S.3d 810

In the Matter of the Claim of Luis A. VEGA, Respondent.
v.
POSTMATES INC., Appellant.


Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

525233

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: March 27, 2018
Decided and Entered: June 21, 2018


78 N.Y.S.3d 811

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York City (David M. Cooper of counsel, Gloversville), for appellent.

Francis J. Smith, Albany, for Luis A. Vega, respondent.

Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, New York City (Mary Hughes of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Egan Jr., J.P.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 29, 2016, as resettled by a decision filed October 11, 2016, which ruled, among other things, that Postmates Inc. was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and others similarly situated.

Postmates Inc. operates a web-based platform that allows customers to request on-demand pick-up and delivery service from local restaurants or stores, which deliveries are usually made within about an hour. Claimant, who was engaged as a courier for Postmates, applied for unemployment insurance benefits after Postmates terminated its relationship with him based upon alleged negative consumer feedback and/or fraudulent activity. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, reversing a decision by an Administrative Law Judge, determined that an employer-employee relationship existed and deemed Postmates liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions on remuneration paid to claimant and those similarly situated. Postmates now appeals, and we reverse.1

"Whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a question of fact, to be decided on the basis of evidence from which it can be found that the alleged employer exercises control over the results produced ... or the means used to achieve the results" (

78 N.Y.S.3d 812

Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 N.Y.2d 516, 521, 498 N.Y.S.2d 111, 488 N.E.2d 1223 [1985] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Bogart [LaValle Transp., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor], 140 A.D.3d 1217, 1218, 34 N.Y.S.3d 195 [2016] ). The Board's determination of an employment relationship will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence; however, "[i]ncidental control over the results produced—without further evidence of control over the means employed to achieve the results—will not constitute substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship" ( Matter of Empire State Towing & Recovery Assn., Inc. [Commissioner of Labor], 15 N.Y.3d 433, 437, 912 N.Y.S.2d 551, 938 N.E.2d 984 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Hertz Corp. [Commissioner of Labor], 2 N.Y.3d 733, 735, 778 N.Y.S.2d 743, 811 N.E.2d 5 [2004] ; Matter of Courto [SCA Enters. Inc.–Commissioner of Labor], 159 A.D.3d 1240, 1241, 74 N.Y.S.3d 108 [2018] ).

Here, in order to work as a courier or delivery professional for Postmates, claimant and others similarly situated need only download Postmates' application software platform and provide his or her name, telephone number, Social Security number and driver's license number; there is no application and no interview. Although Postmates thereafter obtains a criminal background check from a third-party provider and provides an orientation session on how to utilize the application software platform, significantly, claimant and those similarly situated are not thereafter required to report to any supervisor, and they unilaterally retain the unfettered discretion as to whether to ever log on to Postmates' platform and actually work. When a courier does elect to log on to the platform, indicating his or her availability for deliveries, he or she is free to work as much or little as he or she wants—there is no set work schedule, there is no minimum time requirement that a courier must remain logged on to the platform and there is no minimum or maximum requirement with respect to the number of deliveries a courier must perform. In fact, once logged on to the platform, a courier may decline to do anything. When a customer requests a delivery using Postmates' platform, the platform identifies the closest available courier(s) and sends basic information about the delivery request. Couriers, however, may accept, reject or ignore a delivery request, without penalty. Moreover, while logged on to Postmates' platform, couriers maintain the freedom to simultaneously work for other companies, including Postmates'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Vega v. Comm'r of Labor, No. 13
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 26, 2020
    ...to provide sufficient indicia of Postmates' control over the means by which these couriers perform their work" ( 162 A.D.3d 1337, 1339, 78 N.Y.S.3d 810 [3d Dept. 2018] ). The dissenting Justices would have confirmed the Board decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence supporti......
  • Park W. Exec. Servs. Inc. v. Comm'r Labor (In re Escoffery)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 27, 2020
    ...substantial evidence does not support the Board's decisions and they must be reversed (see Matter of Vega [Postmates Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 162 A.D.3d 1337, 1339, 78 N.Y.S.3d 810 [2018] ; compare Matter of Aleksanian [Corp. Trans. Group, LTD.-Commissioner of Labor], 180 A.D.3d 1307, 1......
  • TaskRabbit Inc. v. Comm'r of Labor (In re Walsh)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 31, 2019
    ...jobs themselves. The situation here is analogous to that recently presented in Matter of Vega (Postmates Inc.-Commissioner of Labor), 162 A.D.3d 1337, 78 N.Y.S.3d 810 (2018), which involved the provider of a web-based platform designed to facilitate delivery services between customers and c......
  • Netram v. N.Y.S. Indus. Bd. of Appeals
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 21, 2018
    ...the IBA extended little weight and/or found not credible. It is evident from the record that the IBA considered conflicting evidence 78 N.Y.S.3d 810that turned in part upon credibility determinations, the resolution of which were "within the sole province of the IBA" ( Matter of Marzovilla ......
1 books & journal articles
  • BREAKING DOWN STATUS.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 98 No. 3, February 2021
    • February 1, 2021
    ...Perspectives, & Regulation in the Gig Economy 17-18 (U.C. Hastings L., Working Paper No. 381, 2019). (180.) See, e.g., In re Vega, 162 A.D.3d 1337 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018), rev'd, 149N.E.3d401 (N.Y. 2020); Razak v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 16-573, 2018 WL 1744467 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 11,2018), rev......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT