We have written here about the efforts of several gig economy companies like DoorDash to avoid having to conduct – and pay for – thousands of individual arbitrations alleging that their workers had been misclassified.

As we have said before, companies that implement arbitration agreements with class action waivers must be careful what they ask for.  By using such agreements, they run the risk of dozens, hundreds or even thousands of individual arbitrations, the cost of which could threaten the companies’ very existence.  (In California, we estimate that the arbitration costs alone for a single-plaintiff case are approximately $60,000 – which does not include the attorney’s fees in defending that case or the potential exposure.)  It is for that very reason that some companies have elected not to implement such agreements.

Recently, after being ordered by a federal judge in Oakland to conduct thousands of individual arbitrations pursuant to the terms of its own arbitration agreements, Postmates filed a separate federal suit in Los Angeles seeking a temporary restraining order to avoid individual arbitrations.

Postmates’ hope that a different federal judge would reach a different conclusion is not off to a promising start. On April 15, 2020, United States District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez denied Postmates’ emergency motion for a temporary restraining order to put a halt to the thousands of individual arbitrations because they would be too expensive for the company and because they amounted to a “de facto class action.”

There is little in Judge Gutierrez’s order to give Postmates much hope that they will be able to avoid having to conduct and pay for thousands of individual arbitrations other than a suggestion that an arbitrator could find that the thousands of arbitrations constitute a “de facto class action.”  It is difficult to predict whether that would happen as Postmates still must answer the question that any court or arbitrator will have:  “How can you argue on the one hand that drivers cannot bring their claims together, and argue on the other hand that the drivers cannot bring their claims individually?”

Back to Wage and Hour Defense Blog Blog

Search This Blog

Blog Editors


Related Services



Jump to Page


Sign up to receive an email notification when new Wage and Hour Defense Blog posts are published:

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.