Mason v. Uber Techs.

MEMORANDUM RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATIONAND DISMISS THE CASE

BAYLSON, J.

Before the Court is Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Case. Plaintiff John Mason, III has brought claims for wrongful termination and for violation of the Philadelphia Fair Criminal Record Screening Law. Defendant seeks to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's claims.

I. Background

This case concerns Plaintiff John Mason, III's contractual relationship with Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. Mason began working as a driver for Uber in 2016. After three years and over 2000 trips, Mason's relationship with Uber was terminated. Mason was allegedly told by Uber that his termination was as a result of a background check carried out in 2016 when Mason initially began working for Uber; the background check had shown that Mason had a 2005 misdemeanor conviction for marijuana possession. (Compl. ¶¶ 8-23.)

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant (ECF 1), alleging that Defendant's actions violated the Philadelphia Fair Criminal Record Screening Law, Philadelphia Code § 9-3504, et seq., and constituted wrongful termination. (Id. ¶¶ 25-40.) Defendant, invoking an arbitration provision in Uber's standard Technology Services Agreement (TSA) for drivers, moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the Pennsylvania Uniform Arbitration Act

(UAA) and dismiss the case (ECF 5). Plaintiff filed a Response (ECF 6). Plaintiff argues 1) that he belongs to a class of workers exempt from the FAA, 2) that the arbitration provision does not apply to a claim brought under the Philadelphia Fair Criminal Record Screening Law, and 3) that the arbitration provision does not apply to disputes between drivers and Uber. (Pl.'s Resp. 2-6.) Defendant filed a Reply (ECF 7).

II. Legal Standard

The FAA provides that as a matter of federal law, “[a] written provision” in a commercial contract evidencing an intention to settle disputes by arbitration “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. The UAA similarly provides that under Pennsylvania law, “a provision in a written agreement to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising between the parties is valid...