Labor/Employment
Sep. 27, 2016
Uber ruling didn't force the case off the road entirely
While the 9th Circuit's decision in Mohamed v. Uber rejected the lower court's efforts to totally sidetrack the agreements' arbitration clauses by finding them unconscionable, there is still a road to the courthouse. By Sarah Hofstadter
Sarah Hofstadter
Of Counsel
California Appellate Law Group LLP
96 Jessie Street
San Francisco , California 94105
Phone: (415) 649-6700
Email: sarah@calapplaw.com
Stanford Univ Law School
Sarah Hofstadter is of counsel with the California Appellate Law Group LLP, an appellate boutique based in San Francisco. She spent more than a dozen years as a research and staff attorney for jurists on the California Courts of Appeal and the 9th Circuit. Find out more about Sarah and the California Appellate Law Group LLP at www.calapplaw.com
APPELLATE ZEALOTS
Two days after Labor Day, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erected an impassable roadblock barring two former Uber drivers from detouring around the arbitration clauses in their contracts with the company. Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2016 DJDAR 9314 (Sept. 7, 2016). In a widely publicized decision, the court reversed (and sharply criticized) ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In