# Uber Loses Appeal To Compel Arbitration In Barbara Berwick Case



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

California Labor Commissioner had ruled that Uber Driver Barbara Berwick was an Employee and thus entitled to vehicle expenses.
*CA Labor Commissioner awards Uber Driver $4k in business expenses. Uber Appeals in Court.*

Uber then filed an Appeal in California Superior Court to compel Arbitration.
The Judge just ruled that the Binding Arbitration provisions of Uber's June 2014 Partnership Agreement are unenforceable.

*Uber Loses Bid to Force Arbitration on California Driver*
*http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...bid-to-force-arbitration-on-california-driver*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco*
Case Number: CGC 15 546378
Title: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.et al, A DELAWARE CORPORATION VS. BARBARA BERWICK
Cause of Action: LABOR COMMISSION APPEAL
*http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=WEB&PRGNAME=ValidateCaseNumberSHA1&ARGUMENTS=-ACGC15546378*


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> California Labor Commissioner had ruled that Uber Driver Barbara Berwick was an Employee and thus entitled to vehicle expenses.
> *CA Labor Commissioner awards Uber Driver $4k in business expenses. Uber Appeals in Court.*
> 
> Uber then filed an Appeal in California Superior Court to compel Arbitration.
> ...


This is huge!


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco*
> Case Number: CGC 15 546378
> Title: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.et al, A DELAWARE CORPORATION VS. BARBARA BERWICK
> Cause of Action: LABOR COMMISSION APPEAL
> *http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=WEB&PRGNAME=ValidateCaseNumberSHA1&ARGUMENTS=-ACGC15546378*


The order cannot be viewed from this page unfortunately. If you come across it, please post it.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

Pretty much every judge out there thinks Uber is a disaster. Too bad our politicians cannot see the light.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

*https://www.scribd.com/doc/268911290*

Actual document -- go to last 2 pages for award


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

To ALL NEW DRIVERS, this is why it is important to OPT OUT of arbitration.

You retain your right to sue in a court of law where you have a chance at justice NOT in arbitration where Uber has the upper hand.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

observer said:


> To ALL NEW DRIVERS, this is why it is important to OPT OUT of arbitration.
> 
> You retain your right to sue in a court of law where you have a chance at justice NOT in arbitration where Uber has the upper hand.


The plaintiff did not opt out, judge ruled arbitration clause was flawed.


----------



## LEAFdriver (Dec 28, 2014)

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Pretty much every judge out there thinks Uber is a disaster. Too bad our politicians cannot see the light.


"I can't imagine that they're going to continue with a contract like this," Goldsmith said,_ referring to Uber_. "*It's not a close case. It starts with the clearest contradictory language and just goes on and on and on*."

*DING DING DING!*!! _ Ya think? _

Has anyone else heard of a tale by Hans Christian Andersen called "_The Emperor's New Clothes_"? I'm sure this story can be applied to Uber somehow....I just haven't found the way to make the connections yet.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Txchick said:


> The plaintiff did not opt out, judge ruled arbitration clause was flawed.


Yes but if she had opted out, Uber couldn't use this as an excuse to keep appealing.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

If she had gone to arbitration, she would have likely lost.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA (Aug 21, 2014)

observer said:


> Yes but if she had opted out, Uber couldn't use this as an excuse to keep appealing.


Uber is going to appeal EVERY ruling against them. Rational doesn't matter.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Uber is going to appeal EVERY ruling against them. Rational doesn't matter.


And they're going to spend a lot of money on lawyers.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Txchick said:


> The plaintiff did not opt out, judge ruled arbitration clause was flawed.


I believe the driver began driving before June 2014. That had something to do with it, txchic.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

UberNorthStar said:


> I believe the driver began driving before June 2014. That had something to do with it, txchic.


Yes it did.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Pretty much every judge out there thinks Uber is a disaster. Too bad our politicians cannot see the light.


They will but this is who the drivers need to be putting pressure on now. I suggest that we start demonstrating in front of certain policiticans' offices. Major Garcetti is the first on my list.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> The order cannot be viewed from this page unfortunately. If you come across it, please post it.


Judge Goldsmith's order in now posted.
http://query.sftc.org/MINDS_ASP_PDF...gest=c2e70ccb3afaf3940bfe02f99feedc51d51b9483









Judge Goldsmith also took aim at the "Modifications Clause". If Shannon Liss-Riordan Appeals Judge Chen's decision limiting the Class to Drivers onboarded before June 21 2014, she could potentially expand the Class to every single Uber Driver in California.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> The Judge also took aim at the "Modifications Clause". If Shannon Liss-Riordan would persue an Appeal of Judge Chen's decision limiting the Class to Drivers onboarded before June 2014, she could potentially expand the Class to every single Uber Driver in California.


Modifications Clause in *June 21 2014 Partnership Agreement* that Judge Goldsmith ruled "unfairly favors Uber"









The even more onerous & restrictive Modifications Clause from Uber's latest known *Nov 10 2014 Partnership Agreement*









A successful Appeal, based on the Modification Clauses by Shannon Liss-Riordan, of Judge Chen's ruling limiting the Class to Drivers onboarded before June Agreement went into effect, would expand the Class to ALL (past & current) California Uber Drivers!


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

The contradiction between page 12 & page 17 of June 10 2014 Partnership Agreement regarding if an Arbitrator or a Court would decide Arbitrability:


----------



## LEAFdriver (Dec 28, 2014)

The last line in the above ruling says:
*
"The court notes, however, that allowing the administrative process to go forward and then switching to arbitration to re-litigate the matter is *_*totally anathema *_*to the purpose of arbitration, which is to provide a quick resolution of a matter."*

*Anathema* is a term with several meanings. It derives from Greek ἀνάθεμα, which meant "something dedicated" and, in the Septuagint and New Testament, "something _*dedicated to evil and thus accursed*."[1]_

Now we're getting to the core of the matter!


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> Judge Goldsmith's order in now posted.
> http://query.sftc.org/MINDS_ASP_PDF...gest=c2e70ccb3afaf3940bfe02f99feedc51d51b9483
> 
> View attachment 13778
> ...


Thanks! I have never read the modification clause. It's is so oppressive/unconscionable! It astonishes me that Uber Legal actually believes this provision are enforceable.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Gemgirlla said:


> I have never read the modification clause. It's is so oppressive/unconscionable! It astonishes me that Uber Legal actually believes this provision are enforceable.


See this thread warning Drivers to Opt-out based on the Modifications Clause in Nov Partnership Agreement:

*Drivers' Last Chance To Opt-out of Binding Arbitration*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*California state judge rules against Uber's arbitration agreement with drivers*
*http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/ar...ge_rules_against_ubers_arbitration_agreement/*


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

If Uber is allowed to rewrite an arbitration clause that the courts will accept, drivers will get a NEW chance to opt out.


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)

"Its business model is at stake" that's a good reason to short change workers and avoid taxes. Lie, cheat and steal it's the uber way.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Uber is going to appeal EVERY ruling against them. Rational doesn't matter.


Just like Apple and all the other Silicon Valley companies.


----------



## LAuberX (Jun 3, 2014)

Great news. The Judge can sift thru Uber's B.S. and see the relationship is more employee/employer vs. I.C. good job.

ratings, deactivation, acceptance rates, tipping, fees... an I.C. would have more say in the relationship. We have none.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

I've mentioned this before (and I'm not a lawyer) but I believe the no tipping proscription is a big overreach on Uber's part.

An overreach is sorta like a reach around with only half the contact.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> Modifications Clause in *June 21 2014 Partnership Agreement* that Judge Goldsmith ruled "unfairly favors Uber"
> - attachment omitted -
> 
> The even more onerous & restrictive Modifications Clause from Uber's latest known *Nov 10 2014 Partnership Agreement*
> ...


When logging in to the app today, I received a message indicating that in order to login and drive, I must first read and agree to all of the documents and terms "below". That was followed by a blank area. I closed the app and reopened it hoping to be able to see just what it was that Uber wanted me to agree to. No luck... nothing loaded. A message below the blank area said that to login in I should click '_YES, I AGREE_' to indicate my agreement with "*all the contracts above*".

NO PROBLEM!
Finally, Uber gave me something I could agree to: NOTHING.
So, for the record and my files, I grabbed a screenshot and Ubered-On.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> When logging in to the app today, I received a message indicating that in order to login and drive, I must first read and agree to all of the documents and terms "below". That was followed by a blank area. I closed the app and reopened it hoping to be able to see just what it was that Uber wanted me to agree to. No luck... nothing loaded. A message below the blank area said that to login in I should click '_YES, I AGREE_' to indicate my agreement with "*all the contracts above*".
> 
> NO PROBLEM!
> Finally, Uber gave me something I could agree to: NOTHING.
> So, for the record and my files, I grabbed a screenshot and Ubered-On.


I clicked in the blank portion in the middle of the screen and the app loaded. I Didn't click on the Yes box.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland, Old Rocker

Please look at "Legal" in your "Profile" on the Dashboard to see if there are any new document or contract that you may have "Agreed" to while logging onto the Partner App.

Thanx!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> Michael - Cleveland, Old Rocker
> 
> Please look at "Legal" in your "Profile" on the Dashboard to see if there are any new document or contract that you may have "Agreed" to while logging onto the Partner App.
> 
> Thanx!


I don't do 'documents' on my phone. I logged into my Uber account online, selected my 'profile' and opened up the contracts section. 
The only thing in there was my Partner Agreement, "Last update: November 10, 2014".
That is what is binding for me 
(and as we now know, a substantial portion of that is unenforceable).


----------



## volksie (Apr 8, 2015)

Did Uber get #1. Really bad legal advice when they started? Or #2. Did Uber get really good legal advice and just DID NOT LISTEN? I think the CEO's ego is going to cost Uber and it's investors a fortune in losses forever.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

volksie said:


> Did Uber get #1. Really bad legal advice when they started? Or #2. Did Uber get really good legal advice and just DID NOT LISTEN?


I suspect that like most companies, they pay top dollar for the legal advice they want to hear.
In other words, you hire the representation who can make the best legal argument to defend your position -
not to tell you what you can't do.
That's why a lawyer is called your '_mouthpiece_'.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I suspect that like most companies, they pay top dollar for the legal advice they want to hear.
> In other words, you hire the representation who can make the best legal argument to defend your position -
> not to tell you what you can't do.
> That's why a lawyer is called your '_mouthpiece_'.


On their job listings, there are many Legal Counsel openings.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> Michael - Cleveland, Old Rocker
> 
> Please look at "Legal" in your "Profile" on the Dashboard to see if there are any new document or contract that you may have "Agreed" to while logging onto the Partner App.
> 
> Thanx!


Just opened up the app on my [Android] phone - and there is no 'legal' section there... or any other section in which contains contract info.
As far as I can tell, I am operating under the terms of the Nov 14 2014 Partner Agreement'.


----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Just opened up the app on my [Android] phone - and there is no 'legal' section there... or any other section in which contains contract info.
> As far as I can tell, I am operating under the terms of the Nov 14 2014 Partner Agreement'.


I am as well apparently even though I signed up months before that date.


----------

