Kansas Department of Labor review: Door dash

Formal Complaint and Legal Analysis: DoorDash Pay Model, Worker Classification, and Transparency Issues Affecting Kansas Gig Workers
Submitted to the Attorney General of Kansas, U.S. Department of Labor, and Senator Roger Marshall
Introduction
The rise of the gig economy has fundamentally reshaped the landscape of work in Kansas and across the United States. While platforms such as DoorDash offer the allure of flexibility and supplemental income, they have also introduced new and complex challenges for the workforce. Among these are concerns about fair compensation, accurate and transparent data reporting, and the true nature of the relationship between company and worker.
This document is a comprehensive formal complaint and legal analysis, directed to the Kansas Attorney General, the U.S. Department of Labor, and Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas. Its purpose is to highlight practices by DoorDash that may violate both Kansas state and federal statutes, to detail the real-world impact on Kansas workers, and to respectfully request a thorough investigation and corrective action.
Relevant Kansas Statutes and Federal Laws
To support this complaint, I urge the relevant authorities to examine the following statutes and regulations:
• Kansas Wage Payment Act (K.S. A. 44-313 et seq.):
• The Act requires that employees be paid all wages earned for work performed. Although DoorDash classifies its delivery drivers (“Dashers”) as independent contractors, the misclassification of workers, along with the shifting of business expenses onto laborers, raises concerns under the Act regarding what constitutes fair compensation and the proper definition of “wages” and “work time.”
• Kansas Consumer Protection Act (K.S. A. 50-623 et seq.):
• This Act prohibits deceptive or unconscionable acts or practices in connection with consumer transactions. DoorDash’s alleged misrepresentation of earnings potential, “hot zones,” and order availability through its app may violate provisions forbidding misleading or fraudulent conduct affecting Kansas residents.
• Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (29 U.S. C. § 201 et seq.):
• The FLSA establishes federal minimum wage and overtime protections. While it primarily applies to employees, not independent contractors, questions of worker classification and the practice of shifting essential business expenses (such as uncompensated mileage) onto laborers may trigger the “economic realities” test as applied by the Department of Labor and the courts.
• Truth in Mileage Act (49 U.S. C. § 32705):
• This Act requires the disclosure of accurate mileage, most commonly in vehicle sales. By analogy, the principle of transparent and accurate mileage reporting should apply when apps display misleading information to workers regarding actual driving distances.
• Kansas Common Law on Good Faith and Fair Dealing:
• Every contract made in Kansas carries an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. If DoorDash’s business practices deliberately mislead, coerce, or disadvantage Dashers, such conduct may violate this common law principle.
Summary of DoorDash Practices of Concern
DoorDash’s business model and in-app features create several problematic situations for Kansas workers:
• Misrepresentation of Order Opportunities: Dashers are routinely presented with offers that understate actual distance and time requirements, omit return mileage, and mislead about the true earnings potential of each delivery.
• Shifting of Business Costs: Dashers absorb all vehicle expenses, including fuel, maintenance, and insurance, without additional compensation for long-distance or cross-state assignments. For example, in one documented case, a Dasher was sent on a 25-mile, 33-minute trip for a payout of only $10.50, with no pay for the return journey.
• Opaque Data Practices: Despite DoorDash’s claims of transparency, Dashers are denied access to the full record of their last 100 order opportunities, which is necessary to verify acceptance rates and performance metrics. Requests for detailed order histories are met with vague explanations and incomplete data.
• Algorithmic Manipulation: Rewards or higher statuses (such as “Top Dasher” or “Platinum”) are conditional on high acceptance rates. However, the system may assign less desirable orders disproportionately to those striving to maintain their status, undermining the supposed advantages and coercing continued acceptance of unprofitable jobs.
• Lack of Dispute Mechanisms: There is no effective appeals process for Dashers to challenge pay discrepancies, order assignments, or performance ratings.
Worker Classification and the "Independent Contractor" Model
DoorDash’s classification of Dashers as independent contractors rather than employees is central to its business model and to the legal concerns raised here. While independent contracting is meant to provide flexibility, many of DoorDash’s practices — such as algorithmic control, mandatory acceptance rates for rewards, and lack of wage negotiation — closely resemble those of an employer-employee relationship.
• Coercion Over True Independence: Dashers are incentivized and, at times, pressured to accept underpaid, long-distance, or inconvenient orders, with negative consequences for exercising their right to decline.
• Denial of Standard Benefits: As independent contractors, Dashers receive no guaranteed minimum wage, no overtime pay, no reimbursement for business expenses, and no employer contributions to insurance or retirement.
• Potential Misclassification: The economic realities of the relationship — marked by company control over assignments and metrics — may constitute misclassification under Kansas and federal law, depriving workers of protections and benefits to which they may be entitled.
Transparency and Data Access Issues
A major component of the complaint involves the lack of transparency DoorDash provides regarding Dasher order data and performance metrics.
• Incomplete Information on Earnings and Deliveries: Dashers are unable to access a complete summary of their recent deliveries or the underlying data used to calculate their ratings.
• Obstruction of Independent Verification: Without direct access to historical order data, Dashers cannot confirm whether their acceptance rate or pay calculations are accurate, nor can they understand how specific decisions impact their standing.
• Vague Pay Formula: The process for determining base pay and guaranteed minimums is not clearly explained, leading to confusion and potential mistrust.
Financial Impact and Personal Narrative
The cumulative effect of these practices is not merely hypothetical; it has significant real-world consequences. Many Kansas Dashers find themselves earning below minimum wage after accounting for time, fuel, and vehicle wear. For instance:
• Excessive and Uncompensated Mileage: Dashers frequently incur uncompensated mileage, especially when given cross-state assignments or when required to return to their starting point without pay. I live at 10003 W 136th Street the screen shot I share was an order paying 10.50 that would have taken me deep way into Missiouri and no compensation for having to return to my zone on the KS side. These are typical orders that door dash sends and as a driver I get punished for not taking these orders.
• Delayed or Insufficient Earnings: Base pay often ranges from $2 to $10 per delivery, with no clear correlation to actual time or costs incurred.
• Lack of Recourse: Without a formal process to dispute pay or ratings, Dashers are left vulnerable to errors or unfair outcomes.
The psychological toll is also immense, as gig workers must cope with uncertainty, chronic financial insecurity, and a sense of powerlessness within a system that values algorithmic efficiency over human dignity.
Specific Requests for Investigation and Action
In light of the issues raised, I respectfully urge the Kansas Attorney General, the Department of Labor, and Senator Marshall to take the following actions:
• Investigate DoorDash’s transparency in providing complete order and earnings data to Dashers upon request.
• Assess whether the current pay model and information disclosure practices comply with labor standards and relevant Kansas and federal statutes.
• Examine the classification of Dashers under both Kansas and federal law, applying the “economic realities” test to determine whether misclassification has occurred.
• Recommend or require DoorDash to provide workers with timely, direct access to their full performance and payment history.
• Enforce corrective actions if DoorDash’s practices are found to be misleading, unfair, or detrimental to the rights of gig workers in Kansas.
Conclusion
The issues described herein appear to contravene the spirit, and potentially the letter, of both Kansas and federal laws designed to protect workers and consumers. DoorDash’s business practices — including the misrepresentation of order opportunities, shifting of business costs onto workers, and lack of transparency regarding data and compensation — undermine statutory protections and fair business practices for Kansas residents.
It is essential that the appropriate authorities conduct a thorough investigation to determine whether DoorDash’s current model and app features violate any Kansas or U.S. laws. The goal must be to ensure fair treatment, transparency, and dignity for all workers who participate in the gig economy.
Thank you for your attention to these critical issues. I trust that your offices will act to safeguard the rights and livelihoods of Kansans and promote just and transparent standards for the future of work.
For context, I have been working as a Dasher since April 2025, having turned to gig work after being displaced from my longstanding career as a clinical data manager. Over the past 25 years, my professional responsibilities have centered on designing and validating data systems, establishing rigorous specifications, and developing key performance indicators and metrics to monitor operational transparency and effectiveness. With this background, I am especially sensitive to issues of data integrity and openness. In my experience with DoorDash, I have observed a persistent lack of transparency that stands in stark contrast to the standards of accountability and clarity I have upheld throughout my career. This perspective further informs my concerns about DoorDash’s practices and the urgent need for oversight and reform.
Thank you for your attention to these critical issues. Should you require any further information or clarification, please feel free to contact me.
Scott R. Torres
[protected]

View 0 more photos