383 F. Supp. 3d 1196
W.D. Wash.2019Background
- Plaintiffs are delivery drivers for Amazon/Amazon Logistics classified as independent contractors under individual contracts that include an arbitration provision (FAA applies per contract) and a separate governing-law clause.
- The Arbitration Provision mandates individual arbitration and states the FAA governs arbitration; immediately after, the contract says Washington law governs the Terms but that the FAA governs the Arbitration Provision.
- Plaintiffs allege misclassification as independent contractors (claims raise employment/collective-action issues); defendants moved to compel arbitration of those claims.
- The court stayed the action pending higher-court guidance and then lifted the stay partially to decide arbitrability after relevant Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit developments.
- Central legal questions: whether the FAAs Section 1 transportation-worker exemption excludes these delivery drivers from the FAA, and if so, whether the arbitration clause remains enforceable under some other law given the contracts governing-law language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether drivers fall within FAA Section 1 transportation-worker exemption | Drivers are covered because their work is part of interstate commerce (goods shipped across states, delivered untransformed) | Drivers are not engaged in interstate commerce because their routes are local/intrastate | Held: Drivers fall within the Section 1 exemption; their work is sufficiently tied to interstate shipment of untransformed goods |
| If FAA inapplicable, what law governs validity of arbitration provision | Arbitration provision unenforceable because FAA exemption removes FAA protection and contract disclaims Washington law for arbitration | Washington law should govern enforcement if FAA does not apply | Held: Contract explicitly disclaims Washington law for the Arbitration Provision; thus Washington law cannot be used and no clear alternative law was established, so there is no valid agreement to arbitrate |
| Whether state law can be applied to compel arbitration when FAA excluded | Apply ordinary state-law contract principles to enforce arbitration when FAA inapplicable | Same (Defendants urged Washington law) | Held: Court declined to apply Washington law because contract excluded it for arbitration; absent clear choice, validity of arbitration clause is unresolved and unenforceable on that basis |
| Whether collective-action and NLRA/FLSA arguments invalidate clause | Class/collective waivers and NLRA/FLSA rights render arbitration clause unenforceable | Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent foreclose NLRA/FLSA-based invalidation | Held: Court rejected plaintiffs' NLRA and FLSA arguments as meritless given controlling precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483 (FAA should be construed broadly under Commerce Clause)
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (doubts about arbitrability resolved in favor of arbitration)
- Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (Section 1 construed narrowly; "engaged in commerce" narrower than other formulations)
- Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp., 533 F.3d 1114 (two-step arbitrability inquiry: existence and scope of agreement)
- Palcko v. Airborne Express, Inc., 372 F.3d 588 (delivery-package facts can place workers within transportation-worker exemption)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (arbitration agreements enforced according to their terms)
- Magana v. DoorDash, 343 F. Supp. 3d 891 (N.D. Cal. decision discussing transportation-worker exemption for delivery drivers)
- Levin v. Caviar, 146 F. Supp. 3d 1146 (analysis of when food-delivery drivers are not in interstate commerce)