William Grice v. Usdc-Cala, 974 F.3d 950

Background:

William Grice, an Alabama Uber driver who picks up/drops off passengers at Huntsville and Birmingham airports, never crosses state lines.
Grice filed a putative class action alleging Uber mishandled a data breach; Uber moved to compel arbitration under the driver Technology Services Agreement (TSA).
Grice argued he is exempt from the FAA under 9 U.S.C. § 1’s residual clause because he transports passengers (and their luggage) engaged in interstate travel to/from airports.
The district court compelled arbitration, finding Grice’s work not part of a class of workers “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”
Grice petitioned the Ninth Circuit for mandamus to vacate the arbitration referral; the Ninth Circuit reviews for clear legal error and other mandamus factors.
The Ninth Circuit denied mandamus, concluding the district court’s interpretation of § 1 was not clearly erroneous and Grice failed to show a clear and indisputable right to the writ.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether rideshare drivers who pick up/drop off airport passengers fall within § 1’s residual exemption ("engaged in foreign or interstate commerce").	Grice: transporting interstate travelers (and luggage) to/from airports places him within § 1, so FAA does not compel arbitration.	Uber: As a class, rideshare drivers perform local intrastate trips; Uber’s business is local rideshare, not interstate transportation; Grice does not show class-level engagement in interstate commerce.	Denied exemption; district court not clearly erroneous; arbitration compelled.
Whether § 1 focuses on individual workers’ interstate trips or on the nature of the employer/class.	Grice: transporting persons/goods that are in the flow of interstate commerce suffices even if the worker does not cross state lines.	Uber: § 1 turns on whether the class/employer’s business is part of interstate commerce (e.g., interstate shipping employers), not merely where passengers originate.	Court adopts class/business-focused approach; Grice failed to show Uber drivers are a class engaged in interstate commerce.
Whether mandamus is appropriate to vacate the arbitration referral.	Grice: district court clearly erred as a matter of law, so extraordinary relief is warranted.	Uber: mandamus is drastic and not justified because the district court’s ruling is not clearly erroneous and mandamus factors are unmet.	Mandamus denied: petitioner did not show a clear and indisputable right; deferential review favors district court.

Key Cases Cited

Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (arbitration agreements enforced under the FAA)
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (FAA supports a liberal policy favoring arbitration)
Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) (courts must enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms)
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001) (narrow interpretation of § 1’s residual clause to transportation workers)
Singh v. Uber Techs., Inc., 939 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 2019) (remanded for fact development on whether airport-driving Uber drivers fall within § 1)
Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc., 966 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2020) ("last-mile" AmFlex delivery drivers exempt under § 1 because part of interstate commerce flow)
Bacashihua v. U.S. Postal Serv., 859 F.2d 402 (6th Cir. 1988) (focus on whether the class of workers engages in interstate commerce)
Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters Local No. 50 v. Kienstra Precast, LLC, 702 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2012) (driver may be exempt even if only occasionally crossing state lines)
Harden v. Roadway Package Sys., Inc., 249 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2001) (delivery drivers can fall within § 1 exemption)
United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U.S. 218 (1947) (distinguishes between local cab service and services integral to interstate transport)
In re Van Dusen, 654 F.3d 838 (9th Cir. 2011) (mandamus standard; clear-error requirement)