Key suit win could mean millions in back pay for MetroLift drivers
Taxis that operate door-todoor service moving disabled and elderly passengers for Metro may not have a meter running, but a class action lawsuit could mean a hefty taxpayer bill and millions of dollars in back pay for drivers.
A federal lawsuit was filed last year in the Southern District of Texas by a driver claiming he was owed overtime because of how Metropolitan Transit Authority deployed MetroLift services, using drivers supplied by Greater Houston Transportation Company.
The lawsuit was expanded earlier this month to a class action, allowing hundreds of drivers for Greater Houston Transportation, mostly operating as Yellow Cab, to join the lawsuit that already has 80 plaintiffs.
“These were hardworking Americans just doing their job, who deserve a fair deal,” lawyer Taft Foley said.
In an email, Metro spokesman Jerome Gray said the agency would not discuss the lawsuit while it is unresolved.
Greater Houston Transportation has filed for bankruptcy, the company announced Monday, citing loss of MetroLift’s trips. Its contract with Metro expired June 30.
“The past four years have jolted the local taxicab industry,” Yellow Cab said in a statement. “Unregulated competition, excessive litigation and the pandemic have combined to create an unsustainable environment for the typical cab company. Finally, Metro’s recent decision to abruptly end the MetroLift contract devastated cash flow.”
Yellow Cab is selling its assets to the taxi hailing company zTrip, according to zTrip’s founder, Bill George. The companies have an agreement in which zTrip will buy the assets, which must be approved by the bankruptcy court.
“Our goal is to ensure there is uninterrupted service throughout the bankruptcy process,” George said in a statement, adding the sale should be settled in about four weeks.
If the sale goes through, as is expected, George said the company will be renamed zTrip and new cars and minivans will replace some of the aging fleet.
Yellow Cab did not oppose
the class action.
Metro, however, did. Transit agency lawyers said in filings to the court that some of the complaints are unfounded, though they did not elaborate. The lead plaintiff, Paul Sterling, and others needed to first follow Yellow Cab’s arbitration process, they said.
Despite those objections from Metro, Judge Lee Rosenthal approved the class on July 14. Rosenthal’s order is limited to drivers who owned a cab for use in the Metrolift program or were leasing a cab from Yellow Cab during the 2015 to 2018 period covered by the lawsuit. That includes approximately 400 drivers, Foley said.
Additional drivers have until Oct. 11 to opt in to the lawsuit, according to Rosenthal’s order.
The back pay and other costs associated with the lawsuit could reach tens of millions of dollars, which would be shared by Yellow Cab and Metro, though not necessarily equally, Foley said.
At issue is whether the cab drivers devoted to MetroLift were Metro workers or independent contractors. Metro operates the
door-to-door service for disabled and elderly residents, usually in two tiers: drivers who use small buses that are often Metro workers or contracted through First Transit, which supplies some of Metro’s bus drivers across the entire system, and drivers who operate branded taxi cabs.
To passengers, the two tiers are virtually indistinguishable, but Metro always considered the Yellow Cab drivers contractors.
Sterling, the driver who filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and others, argues Metro and Yellow Cab had far too much control over the drivers to label them contractors: drivers were trained by Metro, wore Metro uniforms and were dispatched and logged their hours with Metro. The fact that they were dressed, scheduled and trained by Metro, Foley said, entitles the drivers to overtime pay and other concessions under federal labor laws as employees.
Included in the lawsuit is a notice handed out to drivers by Yellow Cab that says the company and Metro developed the program
using independent contractors so drivers could make a steady paycheck by billing Metro for paratransit trips, but also work more than 40 hours if they chose by taking on additional fares. The hourly rate, officials said, was intended to be capped at 40 hours and overtime was not allowed.
“For those who want to be or believe they are employees, they simply cannot work over 40 hours,” the notice said.
Drivers, however, said dispatching and the time taking MetroLift passengers often left them working 60-hour weeks and denied overtime because they technically were contractors. Metro was setting their schedules and the demands of the job made them virtually employees, without the pay or protections, the drivers argue.
It is the second lawsuit filed over the contractor arrangement. A similar suit in 2018 was dismissed on technical grounds because the federal judge said the drivers had to use Yellow Cab’s arbitration procedures. That ruling said other drivers could raise the same concerns if their deal with Yellow Cab
was under different terms.
The lawsuit’s elevation to a class action comes as Metro and Yellow Cab end their partnership. Effective July 1, drivers now are employed by MV Transportation, which Metro awarded a five-year, $161.3 million contract in January, effective earlier this month.
That change alarmed some drivers, who told Metro officials in January they preferred to work for Yellow Cab and maintain the contractor model.
Gray said the issue raised by the cab drivers regarding their job status “was not the impetus for the change” in the Metrolift contract. Instead, he said the decision was based on making all the service the same, as Metro already operates some paratransit internally. Metro’s sprawling 1,200square-mile service area is divided into zones, with paratransit vans emanating from various bus operating hubs around the region. Drivers from the Northwest Bus Operating Facility are supplied by First Transit, driving Metro-owned vans.
Reasons for wanting to remain contractors varied from the potential to make more money, to the simple convenience of having a vehicle. Brandy WhiteCarter, a contract driver, said it fit into her schedule better to avoid returning a van downtown or at a Metro bus depot as opposed to simply driving it to her home in Tomball in northwest Harris County.
“If my last trip is out there, I can go straight home and cook a meal for my kids,” she told Metro board members in January.
Yellow Cab officials earlier this year said the decision to end the contractor arrangement would harm the drivers, 80 percent of whom wanted to keep the deal in a poll, said Mike Spears, president of Yellow Cab.
Despite the concerns, many drivers are making the transition to Metro’s ranks.
As part of the transition, Metro plans to spend up to $1.2 million buying some of Yellow Cab’s surplus vans — those with fewer than 125,000 miles on them — as they await delivery of its own newer paratransit vans.