SAN FRANCISCO—A federal judge has allowed a labor lawsuit filed against Grubhub to go forward, paving the way for a bench trial this fall.

On Thursday, US Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley largely denied the startup’s attempt to have the case decided on summary judgement.

The case, which was first filed back in 2015, is one of a slew of ongoing cases filed against so-called “gig economy” firms. Many of these cases attempt to answer a basic question: should most gig economy workers be classified as contractors, or should they be considered employees?

For now, cases brought against companies like Uber, Lyft, Handy, Homejoy, and others haven’t yet answered this question. Either the cases have settled or they haven’t progressed far enough.

But this case, known as Lawson v. Grubhub, just might provide an answer. If Grubhub must treat its delivery workers as employees, the employees would be entitled to all kinds of benefits, including unemployment, insurance, and reimbursement for various expenses, like gas and employee phone bills. In short, treating workers as employees could cost companies millions of dollars. Lawson v. Grubhub was initially brought as a proposed class-action but was not certified—leaving the single plaintiff to file claims under a state law known as the Private Attorneys General Act. The PAGA can result in high financial penalties for violations of the law, but it only applies to employees, not contractors.

One of plaintiff Raef Lawson’s primary claims was that, while he was a driver, he was not adequately reimbursed for expenses that he had to incur while performing deliveries and while being on call to receive orders.

But Grubhub’s attorney Theane Evangelis sees the situation differently. At the Thursday hearing, she argued that, because Lawson was logged into other delivery company apps and was paid to drive for them, he couldn’t possibly have been an employee of Grubhub—after all, he was allowed to take on other work. Ultimately, Lawson was fired from Grubhub because he didn’t adequately respond to delivery requests.

Regarding expenses, Evangelis continued, Lawson did not keep adequate records of how far he drove, so Grubhub shouldn’t be on the hook for those expenses.

“He received $0.50 per mile, and he has no basis for claiming that that was insufficient,” she said. “When he was asked at his deposition if he had any evidence that was insufficient, he admitted that he didn’t.”

In her motion for summary judgement, Evangelis wrote that, if Lawson were to be reimbursed without adequate proof, then he could likely be similarly reimbursed for all of the companies that he was signed into (Postmates, Caviar) at the same time he was working for Grubhub.

However, Lawson’s lawyer, Shannon Liss-Riordan, who has brought numerous lawsuits against other related companies, countered that this amount was simply a part of how his compensation was calculated—which takes into account the size of the order, the distance, and the time taken. It was not, she claimed, a formal reimbursement for the actual number of miles driven. After all, the current 2017 mileage reimbursement rate is $0.535 per mile.

“Here, Grubhub did not identify the portion of the pay as expense reimbursement,” Liss-Riordan said.

For now, the case is set to go to trial on September 5.