Yuquilema Mullo v. DoorDash, Inc.

Background

Jose Reinaldo Yuquilema Mullo and Silverio Flores sued DoorDash, Inc., and its employees Erin Anderegg and Tony Xu for alleged violations of federal and state wage-and-hour laws. Flores worked as a DoorDash deliveryman from July 2018 to November 2020, and Mullo worked from July 2019 to May 2021.

When registering to work, each plaintiff received a hyperlink to DoorDash’s Independent Contractor Agreement and notice that continuing the registration process meant agreeing to the agreement. The first page stated in bold that the agreement contained an arbitration clause. The clause required DoorDash and delivery workers to arbitrate disputes arising from the agreement, including federal and state labor-law claims. It also waived the worker’s ability to participate in or start a class action concerning those disputes. Workers could opt out during registration but could not opt out later. The plaintiffs did not opt out.

The agreement initially referred to the American Arbitration Association’s Commercial Arbitration Rules. While the plaintiffs were still working as deliverymen, DoorDash amended the agreement to refer to rules of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution, or CPR. The plaintiffs presented evidence that CPR had accepted donations from law firms, including DoorDash’s counsel, and had worked with DoorDash and its counsel on arbitration policies for delivery-worker disputes.

Arbitration and Delegation

DoorDash moved to compel arbitration, strike the complaint’s class allegations, and stay the case. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, or FAA, arbitration agreements generally must be enforced unless a contract-law ground makes them revocable. The court also explained that parties may agree to let an arbitrator decide “arbitrability,” meaning whether a dispute must be arbitrated and whether the arbitration agreement is valid.

The court held that the agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated those questions to the arbitrator, except for the enforceability of the class-action waiver. The agreement covered disputes about whether the arbitration clause was unenforceable, unconscionable, applicable, valid, void, or voidable. Because the plaintiffs did not specifically challenge the delegation provision itself, the court concluded that the arbitrator—not the court—must decide challenges to the validity of the arbitration agreement.

Class-Action Waiver

The court separately considered the class-action waiver. It stated that arbitration agreements may require parties to give up the right to participate in class actions both in arbitration and in court. The plaintiffs did not dispute that they voluntarily agreed to the Independent Contractor Agreement and its requirement that disputes be handled individually.

The plaintiffs argued that the waiver was unenforceable under New York contract law because they were not fluent in English and because DoorDash had not disclosed financial links between defense counsel and CPR. They also suggested that DoorDash’s relationship with CPR made the waiver unconscionable, meaning unfairly imposed through a lack of meaningful choice and terms unreasonably favorable to one side.

The court rejected those arguments. It noted that the agreement was available in other languages and that the plaintiffs had not shown that language barriers prevented them from understanding it. It also held that DoorDash had no duty to disclose publicly available information about CPR’s donors. Finally, the plaintiffs offered only speculation about CPR’s possible bias and identified no CPR rule that was unfair or prevented impartial arbitration. The court concluded that the FAA did not permit avoiding arbitration based only on speculation that the process might be unfair.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to strike the plaintiffs’ class claims. She stayed the action pending completion of individual arbitration. The parties were required to submit a joint update every six months, with the first update due June 15, 2023. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 10 and stay the case.