DoorDash made its couriers agree to binding arbitration, and now a federal judge has ordered them to pay almost $10 million to arbitrate over 5000 claims filed by couriers
Here's what I don't get: [...] So, those 869 drivers were doing work without signing any kind of contract? Or maybe they had signed a contract before the clause was added? If that's the case,...
Here's what I don't get:
6,250 DoorDash couriers brought their claims to an arbitrator, claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code.
[...]
The company successfully argued there was no proof that 869 of the couriers had valid agreements containing the arbitration clause. The judge said DoorDash would not have to arbitrate those claims, but it would still need to arbitrate 5,010 claims
So, those 869 drivers were doing work without signing any kind of contract? Or maybe they had signed a contract before the clause was added? If that's the case, would those 869 people not be able to get together and file a class action suit independent of this? Also, what happens to their $300 filing fee if it's dismissed like this?
It's covered in the PDF of the actual decision (which is fairly short and mostly easy to follow): So it seems more like a procedural issue, where it was previously ordered that the couriers would...
Here, petitioners contend (and respondent does not dispute) that at least 5,010 petitioners have signed declarations attesting to “click[ing] through” DoorDash’s AAA arbitration agreement.
...
There are 869 petitioners that DoorDash argues do not have a valid agreement with DoorDash. Instead of submitting declarations for these petitioners, petitioners’ counsel submitted mere “witness statements” in which they stated, among other things, their residential address, the amount of time they have worked for DoorDash, and that they did not recall opting out of arbitration. The November order, however, specifically asked petitioners to provide a declaration setting forth “the identifying information he or she used to register with DoorDash” and “at least referencing in an ascertainable way the specific arbitration he or she clicked through.” The submitted witness statements do not provide such information and without them, this order cannot conclude that an arbitration agreement exists as to those petitioners.
...
The motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED as to the 5,010 petitioners who submitted declarations. DoorDash is ordered to immediately commence AAA arbitration with these petitioners. The motion is DENIED as to the 869 petitioners who submitted mere witness statements.
So it seems more like a procedural issue, where it was previously ordered that the couriers would need to submit a declaration in a specific form, and 869 of them didn't do it, so the court won't order that the arbitration has to proceed for those couriers that didn't submit the required information.
I have no idea what will happen with the filing fees and such though.
Here's what I don't get:
[...]
So, those 869 drivers were doing work without signing any kind of contract? Or maybe they had signed a contract before the clause was added? If that's the case, would those 869 people not be able to get together and file a class action suit independent of this? Also, what happens to their $300 filing fee if it's dismissed like this?
It's covered in the PDF of the actual decision (which is fairly short and mostly easy to follow):
So it seems more like a procedural issue, where it was previously ordered that the couriers would need to submit a declaration in a specific form, and 869 of them didn't do it, so the court won't order that the arbitration has to proceed for those couriers that didn't submit the required information.
I have no idea what will happen with the filing fees and such though.