Golightly v. Uber Techs.

1

GOLIGHTLY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al. Defendants.

No. 21-cv-3005 (LJL)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

December 21, 2022

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.

BACKGROUND

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 (“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 2 013 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 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.

The parties agree that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) governs the arbitration provision unless Plaintiff demonstrates that he is exempt from the FAA pursuant to the residual clause of Section 1 of the FAA. Dkt. No. 22-1 at 7; Dkt. No. 44 at 1, 4. Section 1 of the FAA, discussed in more detail below, exempts “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” from the FAA. 9 U.S.C. § 1 (emphasis added).

II. Uber and Trip Statistics

Uber is a technology company that, among other services, matches individuals in need of a car ride with drivers. Dkt. No. 22-2 ¶¶ 4-5. Uber operates in 150 cities across the United States. Id. ¶ 5. Riders who wish to use Uber's services download Uber's application for riders, while drivers willing to provide transportation services through Uber download Uber's Driver App. Id. ¶ 6. The software in the apps matches riders and drivers based on their location. Id. In nearly all cities where Uber is available, riders are able to schedule a ride within a 10-minute pick-up window anywhere from five minutes to thirty days in advance. Dkt. No. 45-1 at 50. If there is no driver available to complete the scheduled trip, the rider is notified. Id.

The vast majority of Uber trips are intrastate. Dkt. No. 22-4 ¶ 4. For Uber trips taken between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020, the average distance was approximately six miles and the average duration was approximately sixteen minutes. Id. Nationwide, the percentages of trips arranged using Uber's Driver App that were interstate for the years 2018 to 2021 were 2.5%, 2.3%, 2.1%, and 2.2%, respectively. Dkt. No. 45-1 at 23-25. The percentages of trips that were interstate arranged using Uber's Driver App in New York City, New York City Suburbs (e.g., Long Island, Westchester, and surrounding counties), New Jersey, and Connecticut (collectively, the “NY Metro Area”) for the years 2018 to 2021 were 3.0%, 2.9%, 2.3%, and 2.7%, respectively. Id. at 25. Nationally, the percentages of gross fares for Uber drivers derived from interstate travel nationally for the years 2018 to 2021 were 5.8%, 5.5%, 4.6%, and 4.7%, respectively. Id. at 31. The percentages of driver gross fares that were derived from interstate trips in the NY Metro Area for the years 2018 to 2021 were 11.2%, 10.1%, 7.7%, and 8.1%, respectively. Id.

Nationally, the percentages of airport trips arranged using Uber's Driver App for the years 2018 to 2021 were 9.4%, 10.1%, 7.3%, and 8.7%, respectively. Id. at 33. The percentages of airport trips arranged using Uber's Driver App in the NY Metro Area for the years 2018 to 2021 were 6.6%, 7.2%, 3.9%, and 4.6%, respectively. Id. at 34-35. Nationally, the percentages of driver gross fares derived from airport trips for the years from 2018 to 2021 were 19.9%, 20.4%, 14.2%, and 16.6%, respectively. Id. at 38. The percentages of driver gross fares derived from airport trips in the NY Metro Area from 2018 to 2021 were 16.9%, 17.7%, 9.0%, 10.3%, respectively. Id.

The table below presents the percentages of Uber trips in the NY Metro Area terminating at each of the following locations:

2018 2019 2020 2021 (through Nov. 9, 2021)

GWB Bus Station

0.01%

0.01%

0.01%

0.01%

Grand Central Terminal

0.15%

0.14%

0.11%

0.14%

Manhattan Cruise Terminal

0.01%

<0.01%

<0.01%

<0.01%

Penn Station (includes Moynihan Train Hall)

0.33%

0.29%

0.24%

0.26%

Pier 11

0.01%

0.01%

0.01%

0.01%

Pier 79

0.02%

0.02%

0.01%

0.01%

Port Authority Midtown Bus Terminal

0.09%

0.07%

0.06%

0.06%

Red Hook Cruise Terminal

<0.01%

<0.01%

<0.01%

<0.01%

Total Percentage of Trips to All of These Locations as Percentage of All NY Metro

0.63%

0.54%

0.44%

0.49%

Id. at 41-42. The table below presents the percentages of gross fares for Uber drivers in the NY Metro Area for trips terminating at each of the following locations:

2018 2019 2020 2021 (through Nov. 9, 2021)

GWB Bus Station

0.01%

0.01%

0.01%

0.01%

Grand Central Terminal

0.16%

0.17%

0.11%

0.14%

Manhattan Cruise Terminal

0.01%

<0.01%

<0.01%

<0.01%

Penn Station (includes Moynihan Train Hall)

0.36%

0.39%

0.26%

0.27%

Pier 11

0.01%

0.01%

0.01%

0.01%

Pier 79

0.02%

0.02%

0.01%

0.01%

Port Authority Midtown Bus Terminal

0.11%

0.10%

0.08%

0.08%

Red Hook Cruise Terminal

<0.01%

<0.01%

<0.01%

<0.01%

Total Percentage of Trips to All of These Locations as Percentage of All NY Metro Area Trips

0.68%

0.71%

0.48%

0.52%

Id. at 46.

Despite the existence of some number of interstate trips, Uber's advertising and marketing materials do not address interstate trips. Dkt. No. 45-1 at 12. Uber also does not maintain any guidelines, policies, or practices applicable to drivers that concern interstate trips. Id. at 14. Riders who take trips between New York City and New Jersey are charged a surcharge, which Uber states is due to state and local regulations. Dkt. No. 43 at 7-8; Dkt. No. 43-1. Uber also has no partnerships or arrangements with Amtrak, any airline, or any motorcoach company. Dkt. No. 45-1 at 16.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff initiated this action through the filing of a complaint on April 8, 2021, asserting claims against Uber and Checkr, Inc. (“Defendants”). Dkt. No. 1. On June 2 and 16 2021, Checkr, Inc. and Uber, respectively, filed letters to inform the Court that they intended to move to compel arbitration. Dkt. No. 15. On June 23, 2021, the parties filed a proposed case management plan. Dkt. No. 18. Uber took the position that the Court should rule on its arbitration motion before engaging in substantive discussions regarding discovery and case scheduling. Id. On June 30, 2021, the Court issued an order allowing Plaintiff to conduct limited discovery in the form of document requests and interrogatories in support of its argument that it was exempted from application of the FAA pursuant to Section 1 of the FAA. Dkt. No. 19. The Order also permitted Defendants to move to stay all remaining discovery in conjunction with their consolidated motion to compel arbitration and stayed Plaintiff's time to respond to any motion to compel arbitration pending a ruling on the motion to stay discovery. Id. On August 4, 2021, Checkr, Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the action, leaving Uber as the only remaining defendant.

On July 19, 2021, Uber moved to compel individual arbitration dismiss the lawsuit (or alternatively, to strike Plaintiff's class allegations), and stay discovery. Dkt. No. 22. In that motion, Uber argued that Plaintiff's claims are subject to arbitration and are not exempt under Section 1 of the FAA as a matter of law. Id.; 9 U.S.C. § 1. Specifically, Uber argued that the Section 1 exemption does not apply because Uber...