The court reasoned that Dynamex’s argument would make sense only if its agent or its vendor’s agent was being sued by a signatory to an arbitration agreement and the company’s intent was to protect its agents through arbitration. The 1st Circuit quickly disposed of this argument, pointing out that he filed wage and hour claims on behalf of himself, not the vendor. Each of Dynamex’s legal theories begged the question of whether Ouadani agreed to be bound to arbitration.ĭynamex’s first theory asserted that Ouadani was an “agent” of its vendor and therefore bound by the arbitration clause between it and the vendor. A litigant cannot be ordered to arbitrate a dispute that he didn’t agree to submit to arbitration. The 1st Circuit framed its analysis with the preliminary observation that while federal law favors arbitration, it’s a black letter law (a basic principle of law) that arbitration is contractual. On appeal, it asserted three legal theories to argue that Ouadani should be bound by the arbitration agreement that he hadn’t seen or signed.
The district court denied Dynamex’s request to compel arbitration, and the company appealed to the 1st Circuit. Despite that, the vendor didn’t ask Ouadani to sign an agreement that required mandatory arbitration with Dynamex.Ĭourt rejects all attempts to compel arbitration The agreement between Dynamex and its vendor said that wage and hour disputes “shall be subject to arbitration under this Arbitration Provision regardless of whether brought by, Dynamex or any agent acting on behalf of either.” It also required the vendor to provide Dynamex with a written agreement from any independent contractor it used that attested that the contractor agreed to comply with the agreement, including mandatory arbitration.
Dynamex deliveries driver#
The company moved to dismiss the suit based on a mandatory arbitration clause in an agreement between it and its vendor, which the driver had neither seen nor signed. When he complained that he should be treated as an employee, Dynamex removed him from its driver schedule, which effectively terminated his employment.įollowing his termination, Ouadani filed suit against Dynamex, alleging wage and hour claims on behalf of himself and as a putative class action. The vendor and Dynamex classified him as an independent contractor. Although he was paid by the vendor, he wore Dynamex clothing while working, and Dynamex controlled his hours, rate of pay, and other working conditions such as delivery times. The court’s ruling is a reminder that companies seeking to compel arbitration should ensure that all potentially adverse parties to a transaction have agreed to arbitration.ĭjamel Ouadani worked as a delivery driver for a vendor of Dynamex, a delivery company.
Dynamex deliveries drivers#
TF Final Mile LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit (whose rulings apply to all Rhode Island employers) recently held that an arbitration agreement between a company and a vendor wasn’t enforceable against one of the vendor’s delivery drivers who didn’t have notice of the agreement.
0 kommentar(er)
