The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion] Tuesday that Uber Technologies Inc. [corporate website] can require arbitration in a lawsuit brought by former and current Uber drivers over Uber’s classification of the drivers as independent contractors.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that the arbitration agreements were unenforceable because the lead plaintiffs opted out of arbitration for the entire class and the arbitration agreements violated the National Labor Relations Act. The court of appeals ruled that the lead plaintiffs did not have the authority to act on behalf of the entire class and bind the other drivers. The court rejected the National Labor Relations Act claim based on a recent Supreme Court decision [JURIST report] that was based on the same question. Therefore, it was determined that the arbitration clauses were enforceable.

The district court had granted the plaintiffs class action status based on their decision that the arbitration clauses were not enforceable. However, because the court of appeals determined that the arbitration clauses were enforceable, the court also reversed the district court’s decision to grant class action status to the lawsuit. The reversal of the class action classification also resulted in the court of appeals rejected a Rule 23(d) order, which were moot without a class action classification. The cases against Uber were then remanded to the district courts.

Uber has faced several lawsuits regarding arbitration and worker classification. Uber announced in May that the company would no longer require claims of sexual assault and sexual harassment to be resolved through arbitration [JURIST report]. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in April that Uber limousine drivers were independent contractors [JURIST report].  In November the British Employment Appeal Tribunal found that Uber drivers should be classified as minimum wage workers [JURIST Report] and not self-contractors.