Violates Postmates Fleet Agreement

As noted above, the Court does not find a basis for opposing the application of the parties` arbitration agreement. Postmates` request to impose arbitration on all claims of the applicant, Dora Lee, is GRANTED. Neither this agreement nor any action that Postmates can ever take will remove your ability to consult a lawyer. Please read this. Postmates is not above the law. This agreement cannot take anything away from the law. As I have said many times here, consult a lawyer or receive legal assistance for anything you do not understand or deem false. As an independent contractor, it is your right and your responsibility. The only way to find out why you have been disabled is to contact fleet support at support.postmates.com/fleet or by phone at 888-815-7726. Ask if they can provide details on the reason for your deactivation. Often, support agents can`t keep disabling them, so you expect to run into resistance.

You may need to be tenacious and send a message to Postmates several times before getting a response. The waiver of collective action in the agreement of the parties to the fleet here binds the parties to “individual arbitration proceedings,” “renounces their right, challenge or claim as collective or collective action, heard or arbitral” or “representative act” and any right to participate in such acts, and deprives the arbitrator of the power to arbitrate such acts. Decl Maps. Ex.C No. 11B (ii) – iii). The waiver of the class action does not prevent the arbitrator: On the contrary, a separate provision in the arbitration section provides that, with the exception of the class action waiver, “the arbitrator may grant all remedies to which a party is entitled under the current legislation and which are otherwise available before a court, although the arbitrator cannot grant a discharge “that would not have been available in a court.” No. 11B (vi) (4). In light of the assertion of the California Supreme Court at McGill that an application for legal action can be made in a single private remedy and does not require collective action or representative action, therefore, the fleet agreement does not prevent Lee from obtaining such relief in arbitration proceedings. See DeVries v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., no. 16-cv-02953-OMS, 2017 WL 2377777, (given an agreement that allowed an arbitrator to “grant remedies only in favour of each party seeking discharge and only to the extent necessary to grant a discharge justified by that party`s individual rights,” and assuming that one question is whether such an agreement prohibits the arbitrator from granting an injunction, it is a matter for the arbitrator to decide).

McGill does not prevent Postmates from requiring Lee to settle its claims in this case because, contrary to McGill`s agreement, the fleet agreement does not preclu her public request for omission in any forum. On this issue, there are some discrepancies between the appelal courts. See Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc., 857 F.3d 7, 12-15 (1st Cir. 2017) (according to the ninth circuit approach, but noting that the eighth circuit at Green v. Supershuttle Int`l, Inc., 653 F.3d 766 (8. Cir. Cir.