Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 73
purpose to repastinate ground already well-plowed” because essentially the same
arguments were presented in Immediato. Accordingly, the Fist Circuit summarily
affirmed the district court’s order compelling the claims of the Grubhub drivers to
arbitration.
One court in 2022 provided clarity on the types of entities that may invoke the
transportation exemption to avoid arbitration. In Fli-Lo Falcon, Inc., et al. v.
Amazon.com, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172750 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 23, 2022), the plaintiffs,
a group of delivery partners, filed a class action alleging that the defendant defrauded
and breached agreements by purportedly promising operational independence however
controlling every aspect of their business. The defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to an arbitration provision contained in the
partnership agreements. The court granted the motion. The plaintiffs asserted that they
were exempt under the transportation worker exemption. The court disagreed on the
grounds that the exemption was not intended to exempt incorporated entities from the
FAA’s requirements, only individual workers. The court determined that the plaintiffs
failed to demonstrate that the exemption was applicable to a commercial agreement
between business entities. As a result, the court found that there were valid and
enforceable arbitration agreements in place, and thus it granted the defendant’s motion
to compel arbitration.
D.
Significant Decisions Addressing Assent To Arbitration Agreements
Another strategy utilized by the plaintiffs’ bar in opposing arbitration is to contest their
clients’ assent to the arbitration agreement. Significant rulings on this topic emerged this
year from California courts, the Ninth Circuit, and various federal district courts.
The Importance Of A Stand Alone Arbitration Agreement
In Mendoza, et al. v. Trans Valley Transport, 75 Cal. App.5th 748 (Cal. App. 5th Dist.
2022), the California court of appeal held that an arbitration policy contained in an
employee handbook was unenforceable because the parties did not enter into a binding
agreement. As a result, the employer could not compel arbitration or enforce the
arbitration policy’s class action waiver. The court of appeal’s analysis in Mendoza
illustrates some problems for employers who place arbitration policies in an employee
handbook instead of in a standalone arbitration agreement. The arbitration policy in
Mendoza was located in an employee handbook that expressly provided it was
“designed for quick reference and general information,” was for “purposes of information
only,” and “not in any way intended as a contract of employment.” Id. at 784.
Additionally, the handbook provided it could be amended or modified by the employer at
any time. Id. The handbook itself was not signed, nor was there any place for the
employee to initial acceptance of the arbitration policy, and the handbook had no table
of contents drawing attention to the arbitration policy. Id. at 782-783. The plaintiff
instead signed a separate acknowledgement form of the handbook that did not itself
mention arbitration. Id. at 785. Based on all these facts, the court of appeal agreed with
the trial court’s conclusion that the parties had not entered into an agreement to
arbitrate. Id. at 788.
72
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
