Dawson v. Uber Technologies Inc.

Background

Courtney Dawson, who is deaf and non-verbal, was an Uber driver until around December 10, 2019. He alleged that Uber terminated him because of negative rider ratings and that Uber did not provide communication channels accessible to people with his disabilities during the termination-appeal process. He claimed that Uber violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

When Dawson created an Uber driver account in May 2019, he agreed to Uber’s 2015 Technology Services Agreement. He agreed to a second Technology Services Agreement in November 2019. Both agreements contained arbitration provisions. The 2019 agreement covered disputes arising from Dawson’s relationship with Uber, the termination of that relationship, and discrimination claims, including claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The agreement also gave Dawson 30 days to opt out by sending Uber an email with specified information. Dawson did not opt out.

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Uber moved to compel arbitration and stay the court proceedings. Dawson conceded that he agreed to the arbitration provision and did not opt out. He did not argue that the agreement was invalid or unenforceable, and he did not dispute that the agreement covered his disability claim.

Dawson’s only argument was that the Federal Arbitration Act did not apply because its exception covers contracts involving “any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” He argued that Uber drivers are transportation workers covered by that exception. The court noted that federal district courts had reached differing conclusions about whether drivers for services such as Uber and Lyft fall within the exception, and that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had not resolved the issue.

Georgia Law

The agreement stated that it was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act but that, if the Act did not apply, the arbitration law of the state where the driver resided when entering the agreement would apply. Dawson resided in Georgia when he signed both agreements. He did not argue that another state’s law applied, that another statute or public policy barred enforcement, or that Georgia law was overridden by federal law.

The court held that Georgia’s arbitration law required enforcement of the agreement. That law provides that written arbitration agreements are enforceable and directs a court to order arbitration when there is no substantial issue about the agreement’s validity or compliance with it and the claim is not time-barred. The court concluded that Dawson conceded the agreement’s validity, enforceability, and coverage, and offered no reason why Georgia law would not apply or encompass the dispute.

Ruling

The court granted Uber’s motion to compel arbitration. It ordered that the matter be stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration. The parties must submit a joint status report every six months from the date of the order until the matter is resolved and must notify the court within 14 days after the arbitration is resolved. The order did not decide whether Dawson’s disability-discrimination claim was meritorious.