Slashdot Mirror
Uber Drivers Are Subject To Individual Arbitration, Says Court (cnet.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: Uber won a courtroom victory on Wednesday when an appeals court ruled that drivers are subject to individual arbitration in a lawsuit over background checks, a ruling that might help the ride-hailing company fend off another costly class action lawsuit filed by its drivers. While the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that agreements signed by two former drivers for the service over background checks "clearly and unmistakably" require legal disputes be settled by a private arbiter, the reasoning may be applied to another class action lawsuit filed by drivers over the company's employment classifications. Uber agreed to settle that lawsuit earlier this year -- an agreement that was rejected by a federal judge last month. Arbitration is a method frequently used by companies for resolving legal conflicts outside of the court system. However, critics say that binding arbitration clauses give corporations an unfair advantage over employees and consumers who do not have the resources to challenge companies individually.
The difference is :
1) The driver does not change where he is going
2) The driver does not make a living from it
It is like making food for friends or family is not like having a restaurant. Hey, I should totally do that. I open a chain of places where people can order food from a menu. However it is NOT to eat. It is to look at, so I am totally not a restaurant and I do not have to follow the same rules.
As they can order closed bottles to take pictures and they are NOT to drink, I can even give those to minors. As it is to promote art, I should even get some money from the different states.
I am going to call it "I am totally not a restaurant" so there will be no confusion. And if people eat the food you ask? Well, Crayola is not responsible for your kid eating the crayons, so why should I?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
but not prevent the really important ones with merit from moving forward.
Big company hires big lawyers. You lose. AND you get to pay for their lawyers. Great plan.
As far as I know, drivers aren't forced (by operation of law or against the law) to drive for Uber
While this may be the case, there are certain laws that Uber is required to comply with if it wishes to hire workers, whether they be contractors or actual employees. They may not, and in my opinion are not, following many of these laws and they should not be able to require private arbitration against drivers who are trying to force Uber to live up to their legal obligations as an employer. In fact, I believe that binding arbitration clauses are decidedly unfair and biased in favor of the company demanding the contract at the expense of the person who is forced to accept that contract if they choose to do business with that company. You may laugh and say that they can always do business with another company. While that is true - the fact of the matter is that if Uber gets away with forcing binding arbitration on those who should be classified as employees, then other companies will follow suit and you will not have any choice but to accept binding arbitration or start your own company.