He drove a gray van with the name of the company stamped across its side. He wore a uniform, relied on the company for routes and passengers and worked shifts that lasted as long as 16 hours.

But he wasn’t an employee — at least according to the company — until now.

Bao Tai Lin was one of six former American Airporter shuttle drivers who, after years of ferrying passengers to San Francisco International Airport for less than minimum wage as independent contractors, won a labor dispute this month with a decision that affirmed they were, in fact, employees eligible for full benefits and wages.

The case, lawyers and labor experts said, could have wide-reaching implications for California shuttle and ride-hailing companies that overwhelmingly rely on drivers treated as independent contractors despite legal questions.

American Airporter has until June 22 to appeal the case. The company’s attorney, Stephen Tedesco, did not respond to a request for comment.

The so-called “gig economy,” in which companies connect customers with workers who provide services like rides, errand running or food delivery, has shined a spotlight on the difference between employees and independent contractors. And though the gig economy is ripe for labor abuses, lawyers said, other industries are also being snared in the labor crackdown.

On-demand ride services like Uber and Lyft have been largely successful in their efforts to keep their drivers in the independent-contractor category — paying out millions of dollars in settlements with drivers who sought to be reclassified as full-fledged employees but remained contractors.

But airport shuttle services, a shared-ride option that predated the arrival of smartphones, may be fighting a losing battle.

$212,000 decision

The recent decision by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement asserts that American Airporter drivers were, and should be classified as, employees. The company was ordered to pay more than $212,000 in citations for unpaid minimum wages, overtime and meal break premiums to the six drivers in the case.

“Before the drivers could even start making the money they needed to support their families, they struggled to make enough money to pay the hundreds of dollars in van expenses and airport fees they incurred each month just to work,” said David Ta, an attorney at the Asian Law Caucus. “To stay afloat, the drivers were working 10- to 15-hour days, six to seven days a week, without the required breaks or proper pay.”

Lin, a Chinese immigrant who has lived in the Bay Area for 10 years but speaks little English, didn’t fully understand what it meant to be an independent contractor when he signed on to run shuttle routes for American Airporter Shuttle Inc., a San Francisco ride service.

His daughter did, though. And it didn’t seem right.

“He wanted so badly to find a stable job, but he couldn’t even make minimum wage” driving the van, said Joyce Lin, 26, who has long acted as her father’s advocate and interpreter. “It made me so sad to see him like that, but he felt like he didn’t have a choice.”

Lin and other shuttle drivers for American Airporter leased the vans they worked out of for $750 per month, and signed contracts obligating them to continue to pay for years.

Common procedure

About four years ago, when Lin decided he wanted to quit, American Airporter threatened to sue him for the remainder of his lease payments, about $27,000.

He was afraid when he got the notice, Joyce Lin said, interpreting as her father recalled the incident Thursday in his native Mandarin, wringing his hands and shaking his head. “He felt helpless,” Joyce Lin said.

That’s when he reached out to the Asian Law Caucus. As the group’s lawyers dug deeper into Lin’s case, Litigation Director Winifred Kao said, they realized his experience wasn’t unusual; it seemed to be standard operating procedure.

“In the case, Mr. Lin’s employer essentially argued that everybody does this; it’s the modus operandi for the industry,” Kao said. “People need to know you do have a choice and you don’t have to endure these illegal conditions. Just because someone says you’re an independent contractor doesn’t mean you actually are one.”

California Labor Commissioner Julie Su, whose office led the dispute against American Airporter, said cracking down on companies that abuse the independent contractor label is crucial to maintaining a fair marketplace, though her department does not regularly check up on companies for compliance. It relies on outside agencies like the Asian Law Caucus to alert it when something seems amiss.

“My hope is always that our investigations have a deterrent effect on bad actors beyond that one case,” Su said. “In other similar cases, we’ve seen some companies who now take it upon themselves to reclassify and properly put their drivers in employee status. It does have a ripple effect. Ultimately, we hope this creates a new culture .”

SuperShuttle’s fight

SuperShuttle International, one of the largest and best-known airport shuttle services in the country, has for years been ensnared in a legal battle with California over the labor rights and classification of its workers.

Several lawsuits have been filed in California and other states alleging that workers — who must wear uniforms, adhere to a schedule and lease or buy their own vans stamped with the SuperShuttle logo — are employees, not independent contractors.

The state’s Employment Development Department forced SuperShuttle to pay more than $783,000 in employment taxes and penalties for drivers who the state said should have been treated like employees from 2006 to 2009. Two years ago, SuperShuttle sued the EDD. The case will be heard in September.

The EDD and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement both have the authority to go after ride-hailing companies that misclassify their workers to skirt the higher cost and greater obligations that come with a crew of employees, said Aaron Kaufmann, an Oakland attorney who helped lead a 2014 federal class-action suit in California against SuperShuttle in which its drivers won $12 million in a settlement but remained freelancers.

The EDD can prosecute a company for failing to pay payroll taxes on workers wrongfully classified as independent contractors, and the labor standards agency can take issue with the classification itself, wages and treatment. A key aspect that regulators look for is whether workers are truly independent and have control over their schedules, clients and earnings.

Other companies

“Once the state has successfully prosecuted one company, like American Airporter, and concluded that these workers are employees, I wouldn’t be surprised if the state starts looking at other companies,” said Kaufmann, a partner at Leonard Carder. “What these companies are doing is cheating workers and cheating the public.”

All six of the American Airporter drivers who testified, and ultimately prevailed, in the labor dispute reported similar experiences. Several said they had originally been promised 60 percent of fares, though that was later changed to 55 percent. Some reported working more than 10 hours per day seven days per week. The men had to pay out of pocket for airport entrance fees, gas and maintenance. They did not receive benefits, overtime or insurance.

All six drivers had a limited command of English and testified with the help of interpreters. The company, Lin said, did not provide any assistance to ensure that the workers understood the terms of the agreements they signed.

“This is an outrage in our society,” Kaufmann said. “People call this the gig economy or the sharing economy, and that’s a bunch of crock. This is the new Gilded Age that allows wealthy people to take advantage of poor people and exploit workers. That’s where we are.”

Marissa Lang is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: mlang@sfchronicle.com

Twitter: @Marissa_Jae