Bynum v. Maplebear Inc.
160 F. Supp. 3d 527
E.D.N.Y2016Background
- Plaintiff Melody Bynum worked as an Instacart "Personal Shopper" in Queens, NY and signed an electronic Independent Contractor Agreement on Oct. 15, 2014 via HelloSign.
- The Agreement included a broad arbitration clause (JAMS rules), a San Francisco forum-selection provision, a fee-splitting/fee-shifting requirement, and a California choice-of-law clause, plus a severability clause.
- Bynum sued Maplebear/Instacart alleging misclassification and unpaid overtime under the FLSA and NY Labor Law.
- Instacart moved to compel arbitration and to stay the case; Bynum contested arbitrability (arguing FLSA claims are non-arbitrable) and sought discovery on formation.
- At a hearing the parties stipulated to sever the venue and fee-related clauses as objectionable; the court evaluated consent, unconscionability under California law, and whether FLSA claims are arbitrable.
- The court severed the San Francisco venue and the fee-splitting/fee-shifting provisions, ordered arbitration to proceed in New York before JAMS, and stayed the action pending arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valid formation/consent to arbitrate | Bynum contends more discovery needed and that the agreement was an adhesion contract; argues it was between her and a computer. | Instacart asserts Bynum received, reviewed (audit trail), and electronically signed the Agreement; signature binding. | Court found Bynum had opportunity to read and signed the agreement; no showing of fraud/duress — consent established. |
| Forum selection (venue) | Forum in San Francisco is unduly burdensome given Bynum lives/worked in NY. | Instacart's contract designates JAMS San Francisco. | Parties stipulated and court severed SF clause; arbitration to occur in JAMS New York office. |
| Fee-splitting / fee-shifting provisions (unconscionability) | These clauses would make arbitration prohibitively costly and impede access to relief. | Instacart ultimately agreed to strike fee-splitting and prevailing-party shifting; otherwise relied on contract terms. | Under California law and JAMS Minimum Standards the clauses were unconscionable/conflicting and severed by stipulation. |
| Arbitrability of FLSA statutory claims | FLSA claims cannot be arbitrated; Cheeks requires court/DoL approval of FLSA settlements and thus arbitration is inappropriate. | FAA and Supreme Court precedent support arbitration of individual statutory claims; no congressional intent to preclude arbitration of FLSA claims. | Court held FLSA claims are arbitrable; Cheeks does not address arbitrability; arbitration compelled (with objectionable clauses severed). |
Key Cases Cited
- Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., Ltd., 815 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1987) (district courts must compel arbitration when parties have agreed).
- Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (federal policy favoring arbitration).
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (U.S. 2011) (FAA preempts state rules that interfere with arbitration).
- Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1991) (statutory claims may be subject to arbitration).
- Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (U.S. 1981) (distinguishing collective-bargaining arbitration from individual statutory waivers).
- Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP, 726 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2013) (upholding individual arbitration agreements that waive collective litigation under FLSA).
- Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015) (FLSA settlements require court or DOL approval; does not decide arbitrability).
- Cobarruviaz v. Maplebear, Inc., 143 F. Supp. 3d 930 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (similar Instacart agreement; severed fee/venue clauses and compelled arbitration).