A federal judge directed to arbitration a lawsuit from an Uber driver who claimed a companywide mask mandate violated his rights and cost him his job.
Justin Mahwikizi started driving for Uber in 2015 in the Chicago area. The company deactivated his account in February 2022, accusing him of violating a policy requiring all drivers to wear masks in cars as a Covid mitigation. Acting as his own lawyer, Mahwikizi filed a class action against the company.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin dismissed the complaint because pro se litigants only represent themselves, not others. But Mahwikizi filed an amended complaint alleging Uber violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and Common Carrier Law, along with counts of unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual or advantageous relations.
In August 2022, Uber’s lawyers asked Mahwikizi to voluntarily dismiss his complaint and agree to arbitration, pointing to his January 2022 acceptance of a platform access agreement, the most current version of the document drivers must sign in order to use the proprietary software to connect with ride customers. Mahwikizi declined, prompting Uber to file a motion to compel arbitration.
Durkin granted that motion in an opinion filed March 6.
According to court records, Uber gives drivers 30 days after completing a platform access agreement to send an email opting out of the arbitration provision, which “survives the termination of a driver’s relationship with the company,” Durkin wrote. Otherwise, the provision falls under Federal Arbitration Act rules and applies to all claims. Mahwikizi sent no such email.
“Mahwikizi does not dispute that he agreed to the arbitration provision or argue that his failure to opt out should be excused, that the provision is unenforceable under Illinois law, or that his claims are outside of its scope,” Durkin wrote.
Instead, Mahwikizi said Uber drivers are engaged in interstate commerce and therefore exempt from the federal law.
Neither Mahwikizi nor Uber disputed the class would include a group of nationwide drivers, but Durkin noted “the overwhelming majority of courts across the country that have considered” whether rideshare service drivers qualify for this exemption agreed with Uber’s position.
“Uber drivers provide transportation services that are predominantly local and intrastate in nature,” Durkin wrote, citing a random sample of drivers covering more than 390 million Uber rides.” Of all trips taken through the Uber platform between 2015 and 2021, approximately 97.54% started and ended in the same state, and the average trip was 6.32 miles and 16.41 minutes in duration.”
Durkin said Mahwikizi offered no hard evidence to support his claim of frequently taking drivers across state lines and said even such proof wouldn’t sustain the claims on a class basis. He further noted courts that have granted exceptions for employees did so when the workers showed interstate commerce to be “a central feature” of their employment. Uber drivers, by contrast, are general drivers and not specifically providers of interstate transportation.
Mahwikizi said the specific Uber for Business platform establishes a link between drivers’ work and transit hubs, like airports and train stations, that facilitate passengers’ interstate travel.
But Durkin said Mahwikizi’s description of the platform was “inaccurate,” as it doesn’t lead to companies mandating their employees to use Uber for business travel. He likewise said Uber’s contracts with airports for staging lots and desginated areas doesn’t change the fact most of the actual driving by Uber contractors is local.
Uber has been represented by attorneys Jennifer L. Schilling and Victoria Vanderschaaf, of Littler Mendelson, of Chicago.