Cross v. Amazon
What’s at Stake
In this case, Amazon unsuccessfully tried to avoid liability for allegedly abusing the most basic rights of transportation workers by forcing the workers’ claims into arbitration using a different company’s arbitration agreement and arguing that these transportation workers are not exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
Summary
In May 2023, three Amazon delivery drivers filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Amazon, alleging Amazon delivery drivers across Colorado are denied reasonable access to the bathroom, violating Colorado’s labor laws and creating an illegal disparate impact on people with typically female anatomy. This is a case of disparate impact discrimination—when a neutral policy has a disproportionate adverse effect on a protected group— because people with typically female anatomy cannot easily urinate in a bottle.
— all so Amazon can maintain its breakneck delivery schedules and record-breaking profits. According to the drivers, Amazon makes it virtually impossible for drivers to pause from work for even a few minutes without facing discipline. They contend it maintains tight control over drivers with elaborate workplace surveillance technology that monitors their locations at all times, tracks how long they pause between stops, and even tracks their faces and eye movements within the vehicles.
Despite the level of control Amazon exerts over delivery drivers—down to tracking their eye movement and facial expressions—it claims to only have a relationship with its Delivery Service Providers (DSPs). On paper, DSPs appear to be independent transportation companies that contract with Amazon for a share of its delivery business. But the lawsuit argues they are solely created to deliver Amazon products. Everything from their sites within Amazon warehouses to their trucks to workers’ uniforms and schedules are at Amazon’s exclusive discretion. This only-on-paper “independent DSP” model allows Amazon to control its delivery drivers as if they were employees, while disavowing any responsibility or legal liability.
Responding to this lawsuit, Amazon pointed to the fine print in agreements between the drivers and their DSP—agreements that are required and drafted by Amazon—and tried to compel the drivers into arbitration.
Core Legal Problem
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado issued an order on September 30, 2024, largely denying Amazon’s motion to compel arbitration. The court held that: (1) Amazon could enforce the arbitration agreements between the DSPs and the drivers as a third-party beneficiary; (2) that the drivers were exempt as transportation workers under section 1 of the FAA; (3) that arbitration could not be compelled under Colorado law as to most of the workers’ state wage claims; and (4) that deciding whether the discrimination claims and class claims were subject to arbitration was premature. As a result, the workers were able to proceed with a class action alleging state wage claims in court. Discovery is ongoing.
Media
Amazon Is Trying to Stop a Lawsuit From Drivers Who Peed In Bottles From Going to Court (Vice)
Drivers Sue Amazon Over ‘Inhumane’ Conditions, Having to Pee in Bottles (Vice)