New District of New Jersey Case Shows Importance of Requiring Drivers to Form Corporate Entities in Misclassification Cases

Late last month, District of New Jersey Judge Robert B. Kugler partially granted FedEx Ground Package Systems Inc. (“FedEx”)’s Motion to Dismiss in a trucking misclassification case.  The court dismissed several claims but preserved the plaintiff’s wage claim.  One key in getting several of the claims dismissed for FedEx was that it had required the plaintiffs to form LLCs or corporations prior to contracting with them.

In Carrow v. FedEx Group Package Systems, Inc., No.: 16-3026, plaintiffs brought claims against FedEx arising under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”), misrepresentation, rescission, New Jersey Wage Payment Law (“NJWPL”), and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The contract between the driver plaintiffs and FedEx classified the drivers as independent contractors and, for some agreements, first required the drivers to create a limited liability company or corporation and sign the agreement through the business entity.  Plaintiffs argued that despite language in the operating agreements, they were treated as employees as the agreements regulated the vehicle appearance, vehicle maintenance, liability insurance, driver reports, driver uniforms, and driver service areas.  FedEx was also responsible for determining the prices charged for services, route schedules, electronic equipment used, forms for paperwork, and approval of substitutes and assistants. It also actively monitored how drivers operated their vehicles, carry packages, and completed paperwork to ensure adherence to company policies.

Based on the fact that the name plaintiffs had formed corporate entities at FedEx’s request and therefore as individuals were not direct parties to the operating agreements with FedEx, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and rescission.  The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s NJCFA claim because the plaintiffs’ theory was that the fraud related to FedEx’s employment of the plaintiffs which is not a basis for a NJCFA claim.  Further, the court held that plaintiffs could not state a cognizable claim under the NJCFA because business opportunities are not covered by the NJCFA.  The court did, however, allow several claims to proceed, most importantly, the plaintiff’s NJWPL wage claim finding that the fact that the plaintiffs were not parties to the operating agreements was not in and of itself enough on a motion to dismiss to determine if an employment relationship existed between the plaintiffs and FedEx.

For our clients in the transportation, trucking, and logistics industries, requiring that drivers form LLCs or corporations before entering into contracts with them helps to defeat misclassification claims.  However, as this case shows, corporate status is not enough by itself to definitively defeat a misclassification claim as it is one of many factors that a court will consider.

For questions about employment issues involving the trucking and logistics industries, please contact John Vreeland, Esq., Chair of the Transportation, Trucking & Logistics Group and Partner in the Labor Law Practice Group at jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com or (973) 535-7118, or, Harris S. Freier, Esq., Partner in the Firm’s Employment Law and Appellate Practice Groups, at hfreier@nullgenovaburns.com or (973) 533-0777.  Please also sign-up for our free Labor & Employment Law Blog at www.labor-law-blog.com to keep up-to-date on the latest news and legal developments effecting your workforce.

The D.C. Circuit Vacates NLRB Ruling on Driver Status in FedEx Case

In early March 2017, the D.C. Circuit in FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3826 (D.C. Cir. 2017) vacated a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “the Board”) ruling that Connecticut FedEx drivers constitute employees under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The D.C. court said that the case was indistinguishable from a 2009 case before the panel involving a group of Massachusetts drivers.

In 2007, single-route FedEx drivers based in Hartford, CT elected Teamsters Local 671 (“Union”) to represent them which lead to FedEx filing subsequent objections to the NLRB. While the appeal was pending, the D.C. Circuit decided FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB (FedEx I), 563 F.3d 492 (D.C. Cir. 2009), finding that FedEx drivers based out of the company’s Wilmington, MA terminal constituted independent contractors under the NLRA. In its holding, the court vacated the NLRB’s order to engage with the union and denied the Board’s cross-motion for enforcement. The court held that the NLRB was bound to apply the common-law ten factor agency test as set forth in the Restatement (Second of Agency), but explained that rather than a control inquiry, that the emphasis of these factors should be on  “entrepreneurial opportunity” for gain or for loss as it relates to the determination of a worker’s status.  FedEx identified three specific entrepreneurial opportunities available to the drivers: (1) drivers’ ability to hire other drivers; (2) drivers’ ability to sell routes; and (3) drivers’ ability to operate multiple routes.  Persuaded by these arguments, the court held that the FedEx drivers were independent contractors.

In 2014, the NLRB issued a revised decision in FedEx Home Delivery, 361 N.L.R.B. No. 55 (Sept. 30, 2014) which found that the facts pertaining to the Hartford drivers and those discussed in FedEx I were “virtually identical.” Still, however, the NLRB declined to adopt the D.C. Circuit’s 2009 interpretation of the NLRA because it disagreed with the court’s emphasis on “entrepreneurial opportunity” as the key factor in determining a worker’s status. Specifically, it said that the Board should give weight to actual, not merely theoretical, entrepreneurial opportunity, and it should evaluate the constraints imposed by a company on the individual’s ability to pursue that opportunity. Moreover, it noted that FedEx unilaterally drafts, promulgates, and changes the terms of its agreements with drivers, a feature that weighs “heavily in favor of employee status” along with the Board’s view that the drivers lacked independence and were disallowed the initiative and decision-making authority normally associated with an independent contractor   The Board also found that FedEx engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce under the NLRA by refusing to recognize and bargain with the union.

In the present case, FedEx argued that the question had already been argued before the D.C. Circuit in FedEx I and involved the same parties, thus the same result should follow. The court agreed and denied the Board’s cross-application for enforcement, granted FedEx’s petitions for review, and vacated the Board’s orders. The D.C. Circuit noted that in FedEx I, the Board considered all common-law factors and was still persuaded that the drivers were independent contractors. The court also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court previously held that that the question whether a worker is an “employee” or “independent contractor” under the NLRA is a question of “pure” common-law agency principles that a court can review and does not require special administrative expertise.

The takeaway for employers is that in determining whether workers are employees or independent contractors, employers must remember that despite significant overlap, there are in fact different tests as related to the NLRA, federal taxes, the Fair Labor Standards Act, state wage and hour law, ERISA, the Affordable Care Act, and various other circumstances.  While the D.C. Circuit has for the moment clarified (or rather reinforced) its view as to the proper test under the NLRA, employers should always focus on where their greatest liability is and attempt to cater to the relevant test as much as possible.

For questions about independent contractors or trucking and logistics, please contact John Vreeland, Esq., Chair of the Transportation, Trucking & Logistics Group and a Partner in the Labor Law Practice Group at jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com or (973) 535-7118, or, Harris S. Freier, Esq., a Partner in the Firm’s Employment Law and Appellate Practice Groups, at hfreier@nullgenovaburns.com or (973) 533-0777. Please also sign-up our free Labor & Employment Blog at www.labor-law-blog.com to keep up-to-date on the latest news and legal developments effecting your workforce.

How to Avoid Disney’s Not-So-Fairy Tale $3.8 Million Payment of Employee Back Wages

On Friday, March 17, 2017, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) and two subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Co. (“Disney”), the Disney Vacation Club Management Corp., and the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc., reached an agreement to resolve claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), requiring the payment of back wages of over $3.8 million to more than 16,000 employees of the two Florida-based Disney companies.

According to the DOL, Disney deducted a uniform (or “costume”) expense from employee pay, which lead some employees’ hourly rate to fall below the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 per hour. The subsidiaries also did not compensate the employees for performing pre- and post-shift duties while additionally failing to maintain required time and payroll records.

As part of the agreement, Disney agreed to start training all Florida-based managers, supervisors, and non-exempt employees on what constitutes compensable worktime and emphasizing the need to record all records pertaining to time accurately.

There are certain steps that employers can do to avoid the significant damages Disney incurred including:

  • Maintain accurate payroll, time, and schedule related records. This is particularly important to our hospitality and restaurant clients where record keeping can be especially difficult.  Also, remember that under the FLSA, the records must be  maintained for a minimum of three years for payroll records and six years under New Jersey and New York law.
  • Deductions are an easy target for the plaintiffs’ bar. Employers must make sure that any deductions are legal under state law and that the deductions if permissible do not bring the affected employee below the state or federal minimum wage;
  • Perform a wage and hour self-audit every two years to avoid misclassification issues and to ensure your recordkeeping and pay practices are consistent with the law;
  • To avoid donning and duffing claims (claims involving changing into and out of uniforms, costumes, and protective equipment for example), employers must take care to distinguish between non-compensable time when changing into and out of the uniform is merely for the employees’ convenience as opposed to compensable time when the job cannot be accomplished without wearing the designated uniform or costume or safety equipment and it is impractical to arrive at work wearing same.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss best practices in complying with federal wage regulations, please contact John R. Vreeland, Esq., Partner & Chair of the  Wage and Hour Compliance Practice Group at jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com or call 973-533-0777 or Harris S. Freier, Esq., a Partner in the Employment Law and Appellate practice groups, at hfreier@nullgenovaburns.com, or call 973-533-0777.  Mr. Vreeland and Mr. Freier routinely work together in defending wage and hour class actions.  Please visit our free Labor & Employment Blog at www.labor-law-blog.com to stay up-to-date on the latest news and legal developments affecting your workforce.

District of New Jersey Ruling Leaves Employers High and Dry as to Guidance on Dealing with Medical Marijuana Users

On February 21, 2017, the District of New Jersey dismissed a wrongful termination lawsuit by a medical marijuana user who claimed that the employer failed to accommodate his disability in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”).  See Thomas Barrett v. Robert Half Corporation, et al., No. 15-624.  The case raises key issues for New Jersey employers whose employees are legally using medical marijuana, however, the court avoided dealing with the significant substantive issues for employers and their employees raised by medical marijuana, including preemption issues, by focusing on a defect in how the complaint was plead.

The New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (“NJCUMMA”), protects medical marijuana patients “from arrest, prosecution, property forfeiture, and criminal and other penalties” for using medical marijuana to alleviate suffering from debilitating medical conditions.  Since the law was passed in 2010, ambiguities remain regarding the rights of employees who use medical marijuana.  Currently, the NJCUMMA does not require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for “the use of marijuana in any workplace.”  However, the statute is silent on use of medical marijuana outside of the workplace, and there is currently no case law clarifying this provision.  Employers who drug test their employees are obviously left in limbo because if an employee tests positive for marijuana, the employer will be hard pressed to prove that the positive test results from workplace use of marijuana as opposed to use outside of the workplace.

In Thomas Barrett v. Robert Half Corporation, et al., No. 15-6245, the plaintiff suffered chronic pain resulting from a car accident and was issued a license from the State of New Jersey Department of Health’s Medicinal Marijuana Program.  Mr. Barrett alleged that he notified his employer, Robert Half Corp., a staffing company, that he was issued a medical marijuana license and that it was for treatment of his disability.  Prior to a new work assignment, his supervisor required him to submit to a drug test, to which Mr. Barrett alleges he responded by again informing his employer that he was licensed to use medicinal marijuana.  He claimed that his employer responded by telling him not to worry about failing and to simply present his license at the time of the test.  Nevertheless, about a week after starting his new work assignment, Mr. Barret was terminated due to a positive drug test.

In moving to dismiss, the employer argued (i) the plaintiff failed to request accommodation with enough specificity, (ii) the NJCUMMA is preempted by the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) and should not prohibit employers from terminating employees whose conduct violates federal law, and (iii) even if not preempted by federal law, the NJCUMMA does not confer employment protections.

In the order dismissing the action, the court only ruled that Mr. Barrett failed to plead a request for accommodation of his disability, and therefore failed to state a claim.  The court held that it was insufficient for the plaintiff to simply notify his employer that he was licensed to use medical marijuana as treatment for his disability.  Instead, a plaintiff must allege that he requested an accommodation in connection with his disability.  By ruling strictly on whether the plaintiff requested an accommodation, the court left the other points raised in the employer’s motion to dismiss unaddressed – particularly, whether an employee who does properly request an accommodation has a right to such an accommodation under the NJLAD for medical marijuana use, assuming that any marijuana use takes places outside of the workplace.  Currently, there is legislation pending in the New Jersey State Senate and Assembly, Bill S-2161, that would make it unlawful for an employer to take adverse employment action (e.g., termination) against an employee for being enrolled in the State medical marijuana program or failing a drug test.  However, the bill has yet to come out of committee.  Moreover, even if the bill does become the law in New Jersey, it is an open question as to whether the law and the NJCUMMA are preempted under federal law by the CSA, especially with a new federal Department of Justice which has issued public comments indicating a desire to continue to strictly enforce marijuana prohibition.

As a practical matter, employers are in a bind because anyone who has a license to legally use medical marijuana is likely going to have a disability under the NJLAD (and possibly the Americans with Disabilities Act).  Plaintiff employees may try to conflate any adverse employment action as being related to the underlying disability as opposed to marijuana use.  As  a result, the standard advice to employers that they must have anti-discrimination policies in place, policies regarding reasonable accommodations, and training on these policies, is more important than ever.  Any adverse action against an employee based upon performance should always be backed up with the appropriate paper trail of performance reviews and/or employee discipline documents to help to show that the termination was not based upon a protected characteristic such as disability.

As to potential adverse action that an employer takes against legal medical marijuana users based solely on failing a drug test for marijuana, employers are in a difficult position.  For employers in the transportation and logistics industry where the federal Department of Transportation mandates drug testing and does not allow exceptions for medical marijuana, an employer is going to have a strong legal defense if a fired truck driver attempts to sue after being terminated for testing positive for marijuana, even if he or she has a license to use medical marijuana.  However, in other industries where there is no federal drug testing requirement, employers must carefully weigh the benefits and risks before taking adverse action against an employee for a failed drug test based upon marijuana if the employee has a legal license for medical marijuana.  Any employers dealing with issues involving medical marijuana should consult with an attorney as the law is constantly evolving in this area.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss employers’ obligations regarding medical marijuana users, please contact Harris S. Freier, Esq., of the firm’s Employment Law and Appellate practice groups, at hfreier@nullgenovaburns.com, or call 973-533-0777.  Please visit our free Labor & Employment Blog at www.labor-law-blog.com to stay up-to-date on the latest news and legal developments affecting your workforce.

Of Employees and Independent Contractors: The Ninth Circuit to Consider Where Truck Drivers Fall

On February 24, 2017, Senior U.S. District Judge John W. Sedwick in the district of Arizona stayed a proposed class action in Virginia Van Dusen et al v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. et al, No.: 2:10-cv-00899, against Swift Transportation Co., Inc. (“Swift Transportation”). The proposed class is comprised of about 600 members but could have implications for thousands of drivers for the company. This long-running case centers around claims that the trucking company incorrectly classifies its drivers as independent contractors. February’s ruling prevents any advancement until the Ninth Circuit hears the company’s challenge to the district court’s January 2017 ruling that its drivers’ contractor agreements were actually contracts of employment.

In the initial complaint, plaintiffs alleged that Swift Transportation incorrectly classified them as independent contractors as opposed to employees and failed to pay them proper wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and under various provisions of the New York Labor Law and the California Labor Code. Plaintiffs sought relief from the court, requesting it enter an order declaring that Swift Transportation violated the FLSA, certifying the class, and awarding damages for unpaid wages, reimbursement for illegal deductions from wages, and an equal amount in liquidated damages and interest as well as attorneys’ fees. Illegal deductions, such as fuel costs, maintenance and repairs, and insurance, can be substantial in a trucking case, which makes trucking companies popular targets of class actions.

According to documents initially submitted to the court, twenty-five percent of Swift Transportation’s drivers worked in the company’s “owner operator division” and were considered independent contractors. Three-quarters of the trucks were driven by employees. The plaintiffs maintained that a majority of the “owner operators” did not own anything at all, but were instead selected by Swift to lease trucks from an affiliated company. They further argued that they should be considered employees because much of their day-to-day operations were within Swift Transportation’s control and oversight.

In determining whether the contractor agreements were exempt from arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and the Arizona Arbitration Act (“AAA”), the court noted that § 1 of the FAA excludes “contracts of employment”. In assessing whether the Swift Transportation’s contractor agreements were exempt from the FAA, the federal district court looked to the four corners of the agreements. The agreements specified the type of work performed by the drivers, clearly showing that Swift Transportation’s “central mission” is delivering freight to customers across the country. The district court noted that the fact that its employees were doing the work of transporting on the company’s behalf suggested an employment relationship. Swift Transportation maintained, however, that the drivers were giving substantial autonomy and were free to do as much or as little as they wanted in order to profit as an independent driver. Other factors contained within the agreements bolstered the employment relationship, according to the court, including provisions regarding Swift’s control of its drivers’ schedules, load-determination and assignment, and per-mile rates paid to drivers. Moreover, these agreements were automatically extended on a year-to-year basis, a feature of employee status where the relationship is of possibly infinite duration. Thus, the court found that, within the four corners of the agreements, the contracts were those of employment and were exempt from arbitration under both the FAA and the AAA.

The federal district court also looked to other evidence to determine whether the independent drivers were employees. It noted that the plaintiffs had limited autonomy when it came to load assignments and payment structures. The fact that the plaintiffs were paid on a per-mile basis as opposed to time spent at work did not, in the court’s view, make the compensation project-based. Also, Plaintiffs were not paid after completion of a specific job but rather received settlement payments on a weekly basis similar to the regular paydays of Swift Transportation’s employee drivers. Even though Swift Transportation argued that plaintiffs were free to do as much or as few miles for the company as needed to profit as an independent driver, the combination of agreements and leases dictated a minimum amount plaintiffs needed to drive in order to pay for weekly rentals of leased trucks. As a result, the amount independent drivers had to drive for the company was the same as the employee drivers. It was also impractical for plaintiffs to “moonlight” or to turn down cargo loads in hopes of larger ones as there was no guarantee there would be one, which undermined the alleged freedom available to the independent drivers.

The lower court’s review of the agreements and of the additional factors is in line with the approach taken by the Ninth Circuit generally. In 2014, the Ninth Circuit held that the most important factor in determining a worker’s status is the amount of control exercised by the putative employer over the worker’s position. However, the Ninth Circuit also reviews the “totality of the circumstances,” similar to the test used by the U.S. Department of Labor when evaluating independent contractor status under the FLSA.

What is troubling for companies operating in multiple states is there is no complete consistency amongst the circuits as to how to assess the issue of employee versus independent contractor status. Even within the circuits themselves different tests are often used depending on from which state the case originated. Within Third Circuit, for example, there are several approaches. New Jersey expressly rejects the common law right to control test and instead courts apply the ABC test under N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(6)(A)-(C):

  1. Such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such service, both under his contract of service and in fact; and
  2. Such service is either outside the usual course of the business for which such service is performed, or that such service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed; and
  3. Such individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.

Delaware, on the other hand, uses the common law right to control test and courts focus on the amount of control “retained or exercised by the owner.” Delaware courts also look to the element of continuous subjection to the will of the principal, which is a defining factor in the worker-owner relationship.

In Pennsylvania, courts look to the common law factors which mirror those considered in the four corners assessment by the Ninth Circuit: control of manner work is to be done; responsibility for result only; terms of agreement between the parties; the nature of the work or occupation; skill required for performance; whether one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; which party supplies the tools; whether payment is by time or by the job; whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer, and also the right to terminate the employment at any time.

While the Swift Transportation case will be instructive in determining whether truckers can be treated as independent contractors as opposed to employees, the lack of consistency among the circuits means that independent truckers will continue to be subject to challenge. Employers, therefore, need to be very careful in classifying their drivers as independent contractors, especially if their job duties and responsibilities are not materially different from those of its employee-drivers and if company maintains control over how the drivers perform their work.

For questions about independent contractors or trucking and logistics, please contact John Vreeland, Esq., Chair of the Transportation, Trucking & Logistics Group and a Partner in the Labor Law Practice Group at jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com or (973) 535-7118, or, Harris S. Freier, Esq., a Partner in the Firm’s Employment Law and Appellate Practice Groups, at hfreier@nullgenovaburns.com or (973) 533-0777. Please also sign-up our free Labor & Employment Blog at www.labor-law-blog.com to keep up-to-date on the latest news and legal developments effecting your workforce.

Uber Scores Victory Compelling Arbitration in Wage & Hour Misclassification Suit

Just a few days after being in the news and facing consumer boycotts for allegedly seeking to profit as a result of a taxi boycott of JFK International Airport related to President Trump’s immigration Executive Order, Uber received good news when it received a pro-employer legal ruling in a suit brought against the company by its New Jersey drivers.

In a published opinion filed on January 30, 2017, Hon. Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J. of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that a proposed class of Uber drivers must arbitrate their claims that Uber misclassified them as independent contractors, failed to pay overtime compensation, and required drivers to pay business expenses purportedly incurred for Uber’s benefit.  In Singh v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 16-03044 (D.N.J. January 30, 2017), the District Court made two significant findings that are favorable to employers: (1) employment agreements incorporating so-called “clickwrap” or hyperlinked agreements by reference are enforceable—whether or not the employee actually reviews the agreement—so long as the employer provides reasonable notice that the terms and conditions of that agreement apply; and (2) Uber’s agreement with its drivers is not considered a contract involving “transportation employees,” and therefore is not subject to the exemption provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which the court construed narrowly.

In Singh, plaintiff registered with the Uber App (the “App”) in order to become a driver with Uber’s “uberX” platform. Registration required him to electronically accept an Agreement provided by Uber’s technology service provider Raiser, LLC (the “Raiser Agreement”).  When plaintiff logged onto the App, he was able to review the Raiser Agreement by clicking a hyperlink to the Raiser Agreement within the App.  To advance within the App past the hyperlink and actively use the App, plaintiff had to twice confirm that he reviewed and accepted the Raiser Agreement by clicking “YES I AGREE.”

The first page of the Raiser Agreement also contained a paragraph, written in large bold and capital text, indicating that a voluntary arbitration agreement was contained therein.  The arbitration provision required Uber drivers—if they do not opt out within a 30-day period—to individually arbitrate all disputes arising out of, or relating to, the Raiser Agreement, or their relationship with Uber, including disputes alleging breach of contract, wage and hour, and compensation claims on an individual and class or collective basis.  Importantly, the Raiser Agreement’s 30-day opt out provision noted that the arbitration provision was not mandatory, and should the driver choose to opt out of arbitration, Uber would not retaliate against him or her.  Plaintiff was also permitted to spend as much time as he found necessary in reviewing the Raiser Agreement on his smartphone or other electronic devices before accepting it.

Following the filing of litigation by plaintiff, Uber moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration.  In his opposition, the plaintiff first asserted that because Uber only provided a hyperlink, or “access” to the Raiser Agreement, as opposed to providing the document itself, he should not be bound to the Raiser Agreement’s arbitration provision.  In rejecting this argument, the District Court noted that for hyperlinked agreements to bind parties, they must provide “reasonably conspicuous notice of the existence of” the terms of the agreement, citing favorably to ADP, LLC v. Lynch, No. 16-01111 (D.N.J. June 30, 2016), a decision that our firm helped to achieve on behalf of a long-time client.  The District Court determined that since the plaintiff was required to review and agree to the hyperlinked Raiser Agreement before utilizing the App, and the link was prominently displayed, he was provided with sufficient notice of the terms and conditions and therefore manifested intent to be bound by the agreement.

The District Court also held that the parties’ agreement is subject to the FAA, granting the court authority to compel arbitration. Plaintiff argued that his employment with Uber fell within the exemption contained in Section 1 of the FAA, which excludes from the FAA’s ambit contracts involving “transportation employees.”  However, the court noted even if plaintiff was an Uber employee (as opposed to an independent contractor, as Uber argued), Section 1 of the FAA only excludes “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”  The court found that although the Third Circuit has yet rule on the issue, virtually every other Circuit Court having considered the issue found that the exclusion is to be narrowly construed as only applying “to those employees who are actually engaged in the movement of goods, as opposed to the transportation of people, in interstate commerce.”  Coupled with Congress’s intent to only exclude contracts involving certain categories of workers in this way from the application of the FAA, the District Court held that plaintiff’s job was “too far attenuated from the types of employees to whom the FAA’s exclusion is intended to apply.”

Finally, the District Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the Raiser Agreement violated Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  While noting that it is an open question whether “an employee may enter into an arbitration agreement requiring the resolution of labor disputes on an individual basis” (indeed, the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to review this exact issue), the court found it did not need to reach this issue because Uber did not “restrain, or coerce” the plaintiff into being bound by the arbitration agreement contained within the Raiser Agreement because it was optional.

The court’s decision in Singh shows that if crafted correctly, employers are permitted to execute agreements with their employees in more contemporary fashion, and with dispute resolution provisions that are fair and efficient for all parties.

For questions about Singh v. Uber Techs. Inc. and its implications on your company’s arbitration agreements, please contact Harris S. Freier, Esq., a Partner in the firm’s Employment Law and Appellate Practice Groups, at hfreier@nullgenovaburns.com or (973) 533-0777.  Please also sign-up our free Labor & Employment Blog at www.labor-law-blog.com to keep you up-to-date on the latest news and legal developments effecting your workforce.