![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
December 21, 2022, Decided; December 21, 2022, Filed
OPINION AND ORDER
LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber") moves to compel individual arbitration and to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to strike plaintiff Job Golightly's class allegations, and to stay proceedings. Dkt. Nos. 21, 22, 43.
For the following reasons, the motion to compel individual arbitration is granted. The Court stays the action with respect to Job Golightly's claims against Uber.
The following facts are taken from the complaint and the evidence submitted in connection with the present motion to compel arbitration.
I. Present Action
On April 8, 2021, Job Golightly [*2] ("Plaintiff") initiated the present action through the filing of a class action complaint. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff is a Black resident of the Bronx, New York who worked as a driver for Uber from 2014 until August 2020. Id. ¶ 10. In August of 2020, Plaintiff was deactivated from Uber's driving platform, without notice, process, or further communication, after Uber discovered, through a background check, that he had a 2013 misdemeanor speeding ticket from Virginia. Id. ¶ 11. If Plaintiff had received the same speeding ticket in New York, it would not have been characterized as a misdemeanor. Id.
Plaintiff brings a number of claims, both on behalf of himself and others, asserting that Uber's actions violate Plaintiff's and other drivers' rights under New York City Human Rights Law ("NYHRL") and the federal and New York Fair Credit Reporting Acts. Id. ] The NYHRL protections include the Fair Chance Act, which provides important protections to those with criminal histories to ensure that they are not unfairly discriminated against in the job market and helps to promote racial justice. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that "Uber's unlawful policy of using criminal history to summarily deactivate current drivers from its labor platform or reject new drivers [*3] without even attempting to comply with the Fair Chance Act process  disparately impacts hundreds of Black and Latinx individuals, like Mr. Golightly, who drove or hoped to drive for Uber, and who have disproportionately higher rates of criminal history due to the overcriminalization of communities of color." Id. ¶ 17.
On January 7, 2020, however, Plaintiff entered into a January 6, 2020 Platform Access Agreement (the "2020 PAA") through Uber's application for drivers ("Driver App") in order to continue to provide transportation services for Uber. Dkt. No. 22-1 at 3; Dkt. No. 44 at 4. The 2020 PAA contains an optional arbitration clause that purports to cover this dispute; Plaintiff did not opt out. Dkt. No. 22-1 at 3-5; Dkt. No. 44 at 4. That arbitration clause includes a class action waiver. Dkt. No. 22-1 at 4; Dkt. No. 44 at 4.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229911 *
GOLIGHTLY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v- UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants.
Prior History: Golightly v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151100, 2021 WL 3539146 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2021)
drivers, trips, transportation, interstate commerce, interstate, arbitration, exemption, residuary clause, airport, courts, passengers, train, yellow cab, commerce, railroad employee, airline, parties, station, interstate transit, Terminal, fares, nationwide, discovery, riders, intrastate, purposes, taxicab, interstate travel, job description, contracts
Labor & Employment Law, Discrimination, Actionable Discrimination, Admiralty & Maritime Law, Arbitration, Federal Arbitration Act, Business & Corporate Compliance, Federal Arbitration Act, Orders to Compel Arbitration, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Conditions & Terms, Arbitration Provisions, Enforcement, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Courts, Judicial Precedent, Transportation Law, Interstate Commerce, Definition of Commerce, Arbitration, Intrastate Commerce, Contracts Law, Contract Conditions & Provisions, Arbitration Clauses, Constitutional Law, Commerce Clause, Tests, Antitrust & Trade Law, Sherman Act, Claims, Forum Selection Clauses, Appeals, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Judicial Officers, Judges, Discretionary Powers, Stay Pending Arbitration