Labor/Employment
Feb. 12, 2020
Judge orders DoorDash to arbitrate 5,010 courier claims
"The employer here, DoorDash, faced with having to actually honor its side of the bargain, now blanches at the cost of the filing fees it agreed to pay in the arbitration clause," U.S. District Judge William Alsup wrote.
A Northern District judge has ordered food delivery service DoorDash to begin arbitration immediately with 5,010 of its couriers who filed demands for arbitration last year.
In an order issued Monday, U.S. District Judge William Alsup also denied DoorDash's motion to halt the arbitration cases until the company finished settling a class action with more couriers in San Francisco County Superior Court.
"For decades, the employer-side bar and their employer clients have forced arbitration clauses upon workers, thus taking away their right to go to court, and forced class-action waivers upon them too, thus taking away their ability to join collectively to vindicate common rights," Alsup wrote.
"The employer here, DoorDash, faced with having to actually honor its side of the bargain, now blanches at the cost of the filing fees it agreed to pay in the arbitration clause," the judge continued.
Thousands of couriers filed their first motion to compel arbitration with DoorDash last November after they submitted individual demands for arbitration with DoorDash, alleging the company improperly classified them as independent contractors instead of employees. Abernathy et al. v. Doordash, Inc., CV19-07545 (N.D. Cal, filed Nov. 15, 2019).
When the couriers started with DoorDash, the company required workers to click through a contract that contained an arbitration provision, which prohibited them from participating in class actions, collective actions or representative actions against the company, according to Alsup's ruling. Instead, couriers agreed to arbitrate through the American Arbitration Association, which charged individuals $300 in filing fees and the responding company $1,900 per case, Monday's order said.
DoorDash's attorneys from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP said in their response the company "is under no obligation to, and will not at this time, tender to AAA the nearly $12 million in administrative fees."
Monday's order responded to an amended motion to compel arbitration by 5,879 couriers, filed Feb. 10, as well as a motion by DoorDash to halt the federal case pending the conclusion of the San Francisco case, Marciano v. DoorDash, Inc., CGC-18-567869 (S.F. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 7, 2018).
Alsup granted the motion to compel arbitration to 5,010 of the couriers, who all signed declarations confirming they clicked through DoorDash's AAA arbitration agreement. The motion was denied to the remaining couriers because they submitted "mere witness statements" instead of declarations.
Noting DoorDash's motion to stay the arbitration proceedings was based on concerns the petitioners in the case were also plaintiffs in the state case, Alsup denied the company's request. "Ironically, DoorDash originally sought to dismiss Marciano on the ground that the couriers had a duty to arbitrate," Alsup wrote.
Lauren Teukolsky, the founder and owner of Teukolsky Law who is not involved in the case, said Alsup's order makes a big impact.
"I think that it sends a message to employers who have implemented arbitration agreements with class action waivers that courts are going to require them to stick to the bargain that they have struck with their workers," she said. "Employers should think very carefully, going forward, whether the strategy of forcing their employees to proceed through arbitration individually is actually in their interests or not."
"We're grateful for the court's ruling, and we're excited for our clients," said Travis D. Lenkner, one of the plaintiffs' representatives from Keller Lenkner LLC. "They have been trying to start arbitrating with DoorDash for the better part of a year, and DoorDash has obstructed them at every turn. Now we have a federal court order. [DoorDash] has to abide by the terms of the contract it wrote and forced our clients to sign."
As for the 869 couriers whose motions were denied, Lenker said, "One way or another, all of our clients' claims will be heard." Attorneys representing DoorDash did not respond to requests for comment by press time Tuesday.
Jessica Mach
jessica_mach@dailyjournal.com
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com