A case involving a company who relies on gig workers went to trial in San Francisco, and a judge determined that the worker in question was an independent contractor, not an employee of the company.

Raef Lawson worked for four months as a delivery driver for Grubhub Inc., a food delivery service. He was fired from the company because he failed to make deliveries while he was signed on to the app.

Drivers for Grubhub must be licensed and insured and use a smartphone all at their own expense. They must provide proper food insulation bags which they can either buy themselves or lease from Grubhub. The leasing fee is waived if a driver wears a Grubhub shirt and hat. They are not required to lease or purchase anything from Grubhub.

Drivers are paid per delivery and also receive a minimum hourly rate. A driver signs up for a certain delivery time “block” that they can make deliveries in, or make themselves available as a driver by turning on the Grubhub app. Drivers are not supervised or told when they need to work, they choose when and how they work.

Lawson sued the company for back wages, overtime and expense reimbursement. He argued that he was an employee because Grubhub pays drivers a minimum hourly rate rather than just a flat fee per delivery. He also said that delivery work done by him was critical to the business model of the company. Grubhub claimed that they are primarily a software development company, not a food delivery service, so workers like Lawson are not key to their business. They also argued that they did not have enough control over their drivers to classify them as employees.

US Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said that Grubhub had met the qualifications needed to show that Lawson was an independent contractor rather than an employee. They did not control his work by telling him when to work, what kind of transportation he needed to use or what route to take when making deliveries. The judge said there were some elements of the work that were in Lawson’s favor, but overall Grubhub did not have control over his work.

This case was not specifically about workers’ compensation benefits, but the decision could be interpreted as a precedent for other workers who do get injured during their work for these kinds of companies.

Read more from Reuters and read about some of the circumstances of the case here.