Conclusion of Title III

Summary

Across the United States and EU member states, the methods used by online labor platforms to manage their workforce – through scored rating systems – have raised the attention of scholars considering their possible discriminatory outcomes against statutorily protected classes of workers. With this in mind, I aimed to bring to light the possible adverse impact of implementing rating systems to manage platform workers, specifi cally as a criterion for dismissal, and the legal challenges platform workers face when disputing it. So far, scholars have sparsely analyzed managerial workforce practices, such as rating systems, in the light of antidiscrimination laws, particularly in Europe.

I conclude that the fi rst obstacle lies in how platforms place themselves as intermediaries between workers and clients (or hiring parties), by subcontracting their service providers. This arrangement prevents a priori workers – or in the words of online platforms, “entrepreneurs” – from having the protection of employment-related rights. The legal consequences of being classifi ed as self-employed workers or employees have brought platform workers to the courts both in the United States and in EU member states. In the United States, protections against discriminatory dismissals of employees based on their statutorily protected aspects (provided by Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA) are considerably restricted in their personal scope and only reach employees employed by companies with 15 or more employees. In EU member states, the personal scope of the Race, Employment, and Gender Equality Directives and their member states’ counterparts are less rigid and also apply to dependent self-employed persons, but they are less likely to apply to genuine self-employed workers – also named entrepreneurs. The second obstacle lies on how courts in the United States and the CJEU have so far accessed “neutral policies” implemented by companies to accommodate their clients’ preferences. Precedents have up to this point have guaranteed the maintenance of apparent neutral policies to accommodate clients’ preferences that might have a disparate impact on protected groups in the name of the business’ necessity or freedom to conduct business.

Finally, arbitration clauses have also been placed as a barrier for courts to assess the employment status of Uber drivers as well as any other claim regarding these workers in the United States.