Mohamed v. Uber Technologies

Abdul Mohamed and Ronald Gillette (the drivers) (plaintiffs) were drivers for Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) (defendant). The drivers used Uber’s smartphone application (app) to pick up riders. To access the app, the drivers consented to agreements that expressly required all disputes to be resolved by arbitrators rather than courts or juries. The agreements also specifically required an arbitrator to decide a dispute regarding the interpretation of the arbitration provision itself. This expressly included “the enforceability, revocability or validity” of the arbitration provision. After the drivers consented to the agreements, Uber cut off the drivers’ access to the app due to negative information on their consumer credit reports. Without access to the app, the drivers’ work with Uber ended. The drivers separately sued Uber, alleging that Uber’s use of their consumer credit reports violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and related state statutes. In both cases, Uber moved to compel arbitration under the arbitration provision. The district court denied both motions. The district court reasoned that the arbitration provision did not clearly and unmistakably delegate questions about the enforceability of the arbitration provision to an arbitrator. The district court also concluded that even if the agreements were clear and unmistakable, they were unconscionable. Uber appealed.