Uber Drivers Forum banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
854 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2...orial&bu=The Recorder&slreturn=20160522195841

By Ben Hancock Published: Jun 16, 2016
Uber ADR Pact May Get Green Light


Uber headquarters in San Francisco
(Credit: Jason Doiy)

SAN FRANCISCO - A panel of federal appeals judges gave clear signs Thursday that it is ready to reverse a lower court decision finding the arbitration agreements that Uber Technologies Inc. circulated to its drivers were unenforceable.

A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to revive Uber's arbitration clause could have significant ramifications beyond the case before the court. It would almost certainly impact an $84 million class-action settlement that is already teetering.

Circuit Judge Richard Clifton took issue with the fact that U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California, who is presiding over both cases, had specifically disregarded a contrary Ninth Circuit decision in finding the arbitration agreements unconscionable.

"I've got to say I have enormous respect for the district judge here," Clifton said. "But … how can we affirm that?

Circuit Judges Sandra Ikuta and Richard Tallman, who rounded out the panel, were also critical of Chen's ruling.

Uber, represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Theodore Boutrous Jr., seemed have the upper hand in arguing that parts of the agreement seen as illegal could be severed from the contract without scrapping the entire agreement. Boutrous said Chen was on a "seek and destroy mission" and was hostile to Uber's arbitration clauses.

According to Uber, Chen's rulings refused to follow the Ninth Circuit's 2013 en banc decision in Kilgore v. KeyBank, which held that an arbitration agreement cannot be deemed procedurally unconscionable if it provides meaningful opportunity to opt out.

Laura Ho of Oakland-based Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho argued for Uber drivers who contend that the company violated state and federal laws in conducting background checks, including by not notifying them upon finding adverse information. Ho has reached a settlement with Uber in that suit, but the proposed settlement value would increase from $7.5 million to $9 million if she won the appeal.

Ruling last year in Mohamed v. Uber, Chen rejected Uber's arbitration agreements with its drivers as unfair and one-sided. Chen's order examined Uber's 2013 arbitration agreement, as well as a subsequent version introduced in 2014, finding both to be procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Among other concerns, he took issue with provisions that waived a driver's right to pursue claims under the state's Private Attorney General Act, or PAGA.

The decision was virtually the same as rulings he handed down in the course of major California and Massachusetts class actions that alleged drivers should be treated as employees and reimbursed for gas and other expenses.

An $84 million settlement in those cases is pending approval and Chen earlier this month was sharply critical of some of its elements. A finding by the Ninth Circuit that the arbitration agreements are enforceable would give Uber more leverage in any renegotiation of the settlement, should it be rejected, and would go a long way to slowing the onslaught of class action litigation that Uber has faced across the country.

On Thursday, the Ninth Circuit panel for the most part focused on the PAGA waiver.

According to Uber, the provision at issue only bars drivers from arbitrating such claims, but allows them to be dealt with in court. Ho argued, however, that the restriction could be interpreted more broadly or is at best unclear, and thus is illegal under Ninth Circuit case law prohibiting PAGA waivers.

But she had a difficult time getting the judges to buy that. "How can it be more clear?" said Judge Tallman.

She also wasn't winning points with arguments that because Uber sent the arbitration agreement to drivers' electronic devices, and made them accept before accepting new fares, it didn't give them an adequate chance to review the details of the contract.

"I'm having trouble with an argument that [being sent] things that you only read on your tablet or iPhone is procedurally unconscionable," Judge Ikuta said.

======================================================================
Here is article on Alternative Dispute Resolution. ADR

http://www.ciarb.org/docs/default-source/das/contract-clause.pdf
 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Top