Harris v. Door Dash, Inc.

Background

Kevin Jerome Harris, who was not represented by a lawyer, sued DoorDash, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act. He alleged that he worked as a “dasher” between November 23, 2020, and November 29, 2021; worked weeks of 70.5 and 60 hours in several states without receiving overtime pay; and was paid $5.50 per hour on one day in October 2021, which he claimed was below the minimum wage.

DoorDash moved to compel arbitration. It submitted a declaration and account records indicating that a user account associated with Dasher ID 11085281 accepted DoorDash’s Terms of Service on November 23 and December 16, 2020. DoorDash also submitted a version of its Independent Contractor Agreement containing a mutual arbitration provision. That provision covered disputes involving the agreement, Harris’s classification as an independent contractor, his services, payments, termination, and other aspects of his relationship with DoorDash, including claims under federal law. The agreement also included a provision allowing the contractor to opt out of arbitration.

Dispute About Contract Formation

The parties disputed whether Harris agreed to the Independent Contractor Agreement. Harris said he had signed up with DoorDash years before 2020 through an in-person signup process and, in 2020, was able to log in and begin working without completing the online signup flow. DoorDash responded that its records showed an account created by Kevin Jerome Harris in July 2019, but no deliveries through that account, and asserted that the account used for Harris’s work could not have been activated without accepting the agreement.

The court held that it—not an arbitrator—must decide whether an arbitration agreement exists. Because DoorDash was asking to compel arbitration, it had the burden of proving that an agreement to arbitrate existed. Since the parties disputed the making of the arbitration agreement, the court applied the summary-judgment standard, under which DoorDash had to show that no genuine dispute existed about any material fact concerning contract formation.

Court’s Action

The court found ambiguity in the record and said it could not resolve key questions as a matter of law. Those questions included which account Harris used for the relevant deliveries, whether the November 23, 2020 account associated with Dasher ID 11085281 was Harris’s actual account, and which agreement governed the deliveries. The court therefore requested additional submissions and evidence rather than deciding whether to compel arbitration.

DoorDash was permitted to file further papers by March 2, 2023. Harris was directed to respond by a later deadline, and the court limited legal argument to five pages while allowing supplementary evidentiary filings to exceed that limit. The court reminded the parties that statements in briefs are not evidence and that evidence must be submitted in an accepted form, such as sworn declarations. The February 23, 2023 hearing was vacated.