Golightly v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Golightly alleged that he drove for Uber from 2014 until August 2020. He also alleged that Uber deactivated him from its driving platform, without notice, process, or further communication, after discovering through a background check a 2013 Virginia speeding ticket characterized as a misdemeanor. His complaint asserted claims under the federal and state Fair Credit Reporting Acts and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged that Uber’s use of criminal history violated protections of New York City’s Fair Chance Act and had a disparate impact on Black and Latinx drivers. The opinion states that Golightly’s claim against Checkr under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act had been voluntarily dismissed.

Arbitration Agreement and Requested Discovery

Uber moved to compel individual arbitration, dismiss the complaint, or alternatively strike the class allegations, and also sought stays of the proceedings and discovery. The opinion addresses the narrower question whether Golightly could obtain limited discovery before the court ruled on arbitration and classwide relief.

The parties did not dispute, for purposes of the discovery motion, that Golightly had agreed to Uber’s January 2020 Platform Access Agreement by clicking an agreement box twice. The agreement contained an arbitration provision and a class waiver, and Golightly did not use the available option to opt out of arbitration.

The Federal Arbitration Act, or FAA, generally provides rules for enforcing arbitration agreements. Its Section 1 residual clause excludes from the Act certain contracts involving “any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” The Supreme Court has interpreted that provision to cover transportation workers. The court explained that it first had to decide whether Golightly fell within that exemption before using the FAA to compel arbitration or stay the case.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the arbitration issue could not be resolved from the complaint and documents incorporated into it. Although the complaint and agreement showed that Golightly was subject to an arbitration provision, they did not answer the separate question whether he was a transportation worker covered by the FAA’s Section 1 exemption. The court noted that courts were divided on whether Uber and Lyft drivers fall within that exemption and that the Second Circuit had no directly controlling precedent on the issue.

The court found persuasive a Third Circuit decision requiring limited discovery before deciding whether an Uber driver belonged to a class of transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce or closely related work. The court also explained that intrastate transportation may be part of interstate commerce if it is part of the stream of interstate commerce and an integral step in interstate movement. The court did not decide the precise legal standards that would ultimately apply or how those standards would apply to the facts.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may stay discovery for good cause. The court considered the limited breadth of Golightly’s requests, potential prejudice to Uber, and the strength of Uber’s arbitration position. Golightly sought five document requests and eleven interrogatories, generally covering January 1, 2018, to the present. Most document requests sought documents sufficient to show particular information. The court stated that Uber could separately seek a protective order if the request for all driver job descriptions or postings since January 1, 2014, proved burdensome.

The court rejected Uber’s arguments that discovery should be stopped because the company had already provided enough information or because Golightly had not pleaded facts showing that the FAA exemption applied. The court treated arbitration as an affirmative defense and stated that Golightly was not required to plead facts anticipating and avoiding that defense. The court also noted that Uber did not renew in its reply an argument based on New York arbitration law.

Disposition

The court denied Uber’s motion to stay discovery. It took Uber’s motion to compel arbitration under advisement and stated that it would address that motion after the limited discovery was completed. The parties were directed to meet and confer and propose a schedule for completing discovery and filing opposition and reply briefs. The opinion does not decide the motion to compel arbitration, the request to dismiss, the request to strike class allegations, or the request to stay the proceedings.