Okay, reading through the ruling, I think I dislike the plaintiff.
I am no fan of Uber (as I don't use them) but what I can gather is that the driver wants two things:
1. To be paid expenses, primarily fuel costs.
2. To be paid minimum wages/overtime/double-time, etc...
The latter of these seems to be Ms Berwick trying to weasel money out of Uber through deception and technicalities. Not that I am adverse to technicalities, but from my reading of the ruling, Ms Berwick setup a company and then, after claiming wages, asserted that she had no control over that company or visibility into its records and account.
That's clearly ridiculous and thankfully this was dismissed as the initial burden of proof is on her and she refused to provide any evidence of what she was paid, saying that "corporation retained [those records]". To me, that sounds very much like she was trying to double-dip - to be paid through her company and then arguing that she didn't get paid enough while refusing to provide any evidence.
The claim for expenses is ultimately rather boring as it follows naturally from the ruling that the plaintiff was indeed an employee of Uber, which is, of course, the meat of the issue.
The arguments used here are rather persuasive, particularly this nugget:
"Plaintiff's work was integral to Defendants' business. Defendants are in business to provide transportation services to passengers. Plaintiff did the actual transporting of those passengers. Without drivers such as Plaintiff, Defendants' business would not exist."
In other words, you hire contractors, generally, to perform specialised functions that you don't have internal expertise for, but that do not make up the totality of your business. Or, as I see it, if you had no contractors, you should still have a business. That is clearly not the case with Uber as all the people performing the main function of the business are, apparently, 'contractors'.
There are some good points around the 'control' that the various parties have over the operation, which is a core issue in determining the relationship. Likewise the ability of the driver to "affect profit or loss", seeing as she was paid a "non-negotiable service fee".
I think my favourite part of the ruling, other than the typo that claimed the driver "drove 132 hours per day for 49 days", was the following comment:
"Defendants refer to 'industry standards' with respect to drivers' cars, however, it is unclear to waht industry, other than the 'taxi' industry, Defendants are referring."
Which obviously ties in to the precedent, as it involves a taxi company.