Golightly v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Job Golightly filed a proposed class action against Uber Technologies, Inc. and Checkr, Inc. He alleged that Uber deactivated him from its driver platform in August 2020, after a background check identified a 2013 Virginia misdemeanor speeding ticket. His complaint asserted claims under the New York City Human Rights Law, including its Fair Chance Act, and under federal and New York fair-credit-reporting laws.

Golightly had entered into a January 6, 2020 Platform Access Agreement through Uber’s Driver App. The agreement contained an optional arbitration provision covering the dispute and a class-action waiver. Golightly did not opt out. Checkr was voluntarily dismissed from the action, leaving Uber as the remaining defendant.

Uber moved to compel individual arbitration, dismiss the complaint or alternatively strike the class allegations, and stay the proceedings. The court previously allowed limited discovery concerning whether Golightly was exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). After that discovery, the court considered the renewed arbitration motion.

Legal question

Section 1 of the FAA excludes from the statute’s coverage certain “contracts of employment” involving seamen, railroad employees, and other classes of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. The parties agreed that the arbitration provision would cover the dispute unless Golightly proved that Uber drivers fell within this exemption.

The court treated the relevant class of workers as nationwide Uber drivers. It noted that the parties did not argue that Uber’s agreements or essential driver responsibilities materially differed by state. The court also stated that the relevant inquiry concerns the class of workers’ work generally, not only Golightly’s individual driving activities.

Court’s reasoning

The court concluded that Uber drivers are transportation workers for purposes of the analysis but are not a class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce under Section 1. The record showed that the vast majority of Uber trips were intrastate, the average trip was approximately 6.3 miles and 15.6 minutes, and approximately 2% of trips were interstate. The court also considered evidence that about 4% to 11% of drivers’ revenue came from interstate trips, depending on the year and geographic scope described in the record.

The court rejected the argument that occasional trips to airports, train stations, bus depots, and ferry terminals placed Uber drivers within the exemption. Relying on the Supreme Court’s discussion of local taxi service in United States v. Yellow Cab Co., the court reasoned that an Uber ride to an airport or train station is ordinarily an independent local service, not an integral part of the passenger’s interstate journey. Golightly did not show that Uber had a special contractual or revenue-sharing arrangement with an airline, railroad, seaport, or other interstate transportation provider.

The court also rejected the argument that occasional interstate trips were enough by themselves. Unlike the work of seamen and railroad employees, interstate travel was not a central or inherent part of Uber drivers’ jobs. Uber did not require drivers to accept interstate trips, its advertising did not focus on interstate travel, and it had no driver policies or practices specifically concerning such trips. The court therefore found that interstate activity was a casual and incidental feature of Uber drivers’ primarily local work.

The court did not decide Uber’s alternative argument that the Platform Access Agreement was a licensing agreement rather than a “contract of employment.” It also did not address Uber’s alternative argument that Golightly was compelled to arbitrate under New York law.

Disposition

The court held that Golightly’s claims were subject to the FAA and were not exempt under Section 1. It granted Uber’s motion to compel individual arbitration and stayed the claims brought by Golightly against Uber pending arbitration. The opinion does not state a separate disposition granting or denying Uber’s alternative requests to dismiss the complaint or strike the class allegations.

Judge Lewis J. Liman signed the opinion and order on December 21, 2022.