18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 221 at UPSMI did not qualify her as a transportation worker under applicable case law. The Court agreed with Defendants that Plaintiff did not qualify as a transportation worker under Section 1 such that she was exempt from the FAA. At the outset the Court noted that case law authorities had applied the exemption to individuals who do not physically transport packages. However, in these cases, the individual was both: (i) employed in the transportation industry, and (ii) working closely with those who were physically transporting goods. The Court found that Plaintiff was not exempt from the FAA as a transportation worker because she neither physically transported goods herself, nor did she work closely with those who did. Because her work was limited to processing and sorting packages that were received in the facility, the Court determined that the transportation worker exemption did not apply. The Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s PAGA claim. Because the remaining claims were subject to arbitration, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s individual claims without prejudice. Short, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 21-CV-14057(S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2021) . Plaintiffs, a group of ride-share drivers, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified drivers as independent contractors and thereby failed to pay them minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to an aberration agreement contained in their independent contractor agreement. The Court granted the motion. The Court noted that there was no dispute that the agreement encompassed Plaintiffs’ claims and that Plaintiffs signed the agreement. Plaintiffs, however, argued that they were part of a class of transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce, and thus were exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The Court noted that it had considered pertinent case law authority on the applicability of the § 1 exemption of the FAA to rideshare drivers and it agreed with those other rulings that the exemption did not apply. Further, the Court explained that the undisputed record did not support the contention that drivers were engaged in interstate commerce, as Defendant submitted evidence showing that only a small percentage of trips and a small percentage of total drivers actually crossed state lines. For these reasons, the Court held that since the parties entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate the FLSA claims, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel. Singh, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225732 (D.N.J. Nov. 23, 2021). Plaintiff brought a putative class action on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated Uber drivers alleging that Defendant misclassified the drivers as independent contractors as opposed to employees, which resulted in their being deprived of overtime compensation, and having to incur business expenses for the benefit of Uber Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims. Plaintiff opposed the motion to compel arbitration on numerous grounds, one of which was that the Court did not have the authority to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Plaintiff argued that, to the extent that he had an agreement with Defendant, it fell within the ambit of the residual clause – the "any other class of workers" portion – of § 1 of the FAA. The Court granted Defendant’s motion. On appeal, the District Court’s ruling was vacated on the grounds that the residual clause of § 1 may extend to a class of transportation workers who transport passengers, so long as they are engaged in interstate commerce or in work so closely related thereto as to be in practical effect part of it. In addition, because neither the complaint nor incorporated documents sufficed to resolve the engaged-in-interstate-commerce inquiry, the matter was remanded for a determination of whether Plaintiff belonged to a class of transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce or in work so closely related thereto as to be in practical effect part of it. Upon remand, the Court found that the exemption did not apply, and it granted Defendant’s motion. The Court reasoned that drivers in the "general business of giving people local rides, not the particular business of offering interstate transportation to passengers," unlike railroad workers and seamen, whose jobs revolve around interstate travel/movement. Id. at *48. The Court ruled that FAA therefore applied and the parties must arbitrate pursuant to the arbitration agreement. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel and dismissed the action. Solorio, et al. v. ABC Phones Of N.C., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20871 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of former store managers, filed a class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay all wages due in violation of the California Labor Code. Defendant moved to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to an arbitration agreement included in their hiring documentation. The Court granted Defendant’s motion. During Plaintiffs’ "on-boarding" process for employment with Defendant, the company required completions of courses in its learning management system (“LMS”) related to arbitration. Id . at *17. Plaintiffs completed the course