On July 8, in Gist v. ZoAn Management, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and court of appeals, granting the defendants' motion to compel arbitration.
The court concluded that because nothing in the arbitration agreement prohibited the plaintiff from being awarded any relief he might be entitled to under Oregon's wage and hour statutes, the arbitration provision was not unconscionable and therefore enforceable.
Background
The parties executed a Driver Services Agreement (DSA) in which the plaintiff agreed to provide the defendants with delivery services.
The DSA stated that all drivers were independent contractors and included a section on dispute resolution, which provided that if the parties did not pursue mediation or if mediation failed, then any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to the DSA, including disputes about the existence, scope or validity of the DSA itself, shall be resolved through binding arbitration. The DSA also included a savings clause, allowing for the severance of any invalid or unenforceable term of the DSA.
The plaintiff filed a class-action complaint against the defendants on behalf of himself and all current and former individuals subject to the DSA, asserting that he was an employee, not an independent contractor, and that the defendants had violated state wage and hour statutes.
Trial and Appellate Court Decisions
Based on the DSA, the defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration. The...
; ; ; agreed to pay $17.07 million to settle federal allegations of illegal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) hiring practices on Friday, marking the Justice Department's first resolution unde...