When Does It End? The 3rd Circuit Grapples with Limits on Retrials in Long-Running Uber Driver Classification Case
By sam, Seasoned Investigative Journalist Published September 20, 2025
When Does It End – In the ever-evolving landscape of gig economy litigation, a nearly decade-old lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc. has thrust a fundamental question into the spotlight: How many retrials are too many before a case must be laid to rest? On September 15, 2025, a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit heard oral arguments in Razak v. Uber, expressing skepticism about reviving the case for a third jury trial after two previous deadlocks. This development underscores broader tensions in worker classification disputes, where persistent legal battles test the boundaries of judicial efficiency, due process, and corporate accountability.
As a journalist with over two decades covering labor law and tech industry disruptions, I’ve delved into court records, expert analyses, and public discourse to unpack this saga. What emerges is a story of procedural endurance, shifting legal standards, and the human cost of protracted litigation—all while the gig economy continues to reshape American workplaces.
Background: A Decade of Disputes Over Driver Status
The case originated in 2016 when three Uber Black drivers—operating the company’s luxury car service in Philadelphia—sued Uber, alleging misclassification as independent contractors rather than employees. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employee status would entitle them to minimum wage, overtime, and expense reimbursements. The plaintiffs argued Uber exerted significant control over their work, from fare-setting to performance monitoring, blurring the line between contractor and employee.
U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson initially sided with Uber in 2018, granting summary judgment on the grounds that the drivers operated as independent businesses. However, the 3rd Circuit reversed this in 2020, citing “material factual disputes” over factors like profit opportunities and control, paving the way for trial. The first trial in 2023 ended in a hung jury. A second attempt in 2024 similarly deadlocked, with jurors unable to reach unanimity.
Frustrated by what he described as an “endless loop” of mistrials, Judge Baylson dismissed the case with prejudice in July 2024, arguing that a third trial would be “futile” and drain court resources without resolution. He emphasized that no single litigant should “monopolize” judicial time, especially when issues, though non-frivolous, show no path to consensus. The plaintiffs appealed, contending that dismissal infringes on their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and that persistent hung juries do not equate to futility.
Recent Developments: The 3rd Circuit’s Hearing and Judicial Doubts
image from google.com
At yesterday’s hearing in Philadelphia, the three-judge panel—comprising Judges Patty Shwartz, Luis Felipe Restrepo, and D. Brooks Smith—appeared reluctant to greenlight another trial. All three pressed attorneys on establishing a clear standard for when retrials become excessive, with one judge reportedly asking, “When does it end?” This echoes Baylson’s concerns about infinite loops but highlights a gap in federal precedent: While double jeopardy protections limit retrials in criminal cases after acquittals or certain mistrials, civil litigation lacks a hard cap.
Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that dismissal sets a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing defendants to “run out the clock” in complex cases. Uber’s team countered that repeated failures to persuade juries indicate the claims’ weakness, and courts must prioritize docket management. A decision is expected in the coming months, but the panel’s tone suggests the dismissal may stand, potentially ending the suit after eight years.
This isn’t Uber’s first rodeo in Pennsylvania. A separate 2017 antitrust suit by Philadelphia taxi companies accused Uber of predatory practices, but it was dismissed for lack of injury—though the 3rd Circuit reviewed similar appeals. More broadly, Uber has navigated misclassification challenges nationwide, often steering cases toward arbitration via user agreements.
Emerging Trends: Gig Worker Rights in Flux
This case reflects a pivotal trend in labor law: the ongoing battle over gig worker classification amid regulatory shifts. In 2024, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 22, solidifying app-based drivers as contractors under state law—a framework Uber has championed. Yet, federal appeals courts remain divided. The 3rd Circuit’s 2023 ruling in a related Uber case compelled arbitration for wage claims, deeming drivers not “engaged in interstate commerce” under the Federal Arbitration Act, as only 2.5% of trips cross state lines.
Nationally, arbitration clauses are surging, with the American Arbitration Association reporting over 500,000 cases filed in 2023—a record high. Uber has leveraged these in multidistrict litigation (MDL) challenges, including a 2024 9th Circuit appeal over non-consolidation clauses in terms-of-use agreements for sexual assault claims. Public backlash has grown; for instance, a recent New Jersey case barred parents from suing Uber after a crash because their daughter accepted Uber Eats terms, sparking debates on consumer protections.
On social media, discussions highlight frustrations with retrials in high-profile cases, from criminal hung juries to civil deadlocks, with users decrying “garbage” systems that retry until desired outcomes. Legal experts warn that without clearer guidelines, such as those potentially emerging from this appeal, courts risk uneven application of justice.
Key Players: Advocates, Corporations, and the Bench
- Plaintiffs’ Side: Led by Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, a veteran of gig economy suits (including against Lyft and DoorDash), and Jeremy Abay. Liss-Riordan has secured multimillion-dollar settlements in similar cases, framing this as a fight for worker dignity.
- Uber’s Defense: Represented by Christian Angotti of Littler Mendelson and Heather Richardson of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, firms specializing in employment law. Uber’s strategy emphasizes arbitration and contractor models, with Chief Legal Officer D. Tony West overseeing high-stakes appeals.
- Judicial Figures: Judge Baylson’s dismissal drew on resource management, while the 3rd Circuit panel’s queries signal a push for precedent. Broader input comes from groups like the National Employment Law Project, advocating for employee protections.
Interviews with labor law professors, such as those from the University of Pennsylvania, reveal consensus: This case could influence how courts handle “stuck” juries, potentially capping retrials at two or three absent compelling new evidence.
Analysis: Balancing Justice and Efficiency
Ethically, the case tests journalism’s call for fairness—Uber argues for closure to avoid endless harassment, while drivers seek vindication after years in limbo. Yet, as gig work employs millions, unresolved classification issues perpetuate inequality. Trends point toward more arbitration, reducing court burdens but limiting public scrutiny. If the 3rd Circuit affirms dismissal, it may embolden companies to endure trials knowing persistence could lead to exhaustion.
In conclusion, Razak v. Uber isn’t just about retrials—it’s a microcosm of gig economy power dynamics. As the 3rd Circuit deliberates, stakeholders from drivers to policymakers await a ruling that could redefine when “enough is enough” in American courts. Stay tuned for updates as this story unfolds.
You must be logged in to post a comment.