Tyler v. Uber Techs., Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 September 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 19-3492 (ABJ)
• Citation: 487 F.Supp.3d 27
• Parties: Samuel TYLER, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

487 F.Supp.3d 27

Samuel TYLER, Plaintiff,

v.UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 19-3492 (ABJ)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed September 17, 2020

Samuel Tyler, Rochester, NY, pro se.

Ethan Daniel Balsam, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AMY BERMAN JACKSON, United States District Judge

Pro se plaintiff Samuel Tyler provides ride-sharing and food delivery services to customers through Uber. He filed this action against Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber"), and a passenger he refers to as "Rider Grayson." See generally Am. Compl. [Dkt. # 9]. Plaintiff was connected with Grayson through the use of Uber's smartphone application in June 2018. Am. Compl. at 14. Plaintiff alleges that during the ride, he rejected Grayson's sexual overtures, and Grayson retaliated by filing a complaint with Uber alleging that he was driving while intoxicated. Am. Compl. at 5. Based on those circumstances, plaintiff claims that he was a victim of sexual harassment. Am. Compl. at 5; Ex. A to Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 13-2] ("EEOC Compl.") ¶ 4. He also alleges that Uber's subsequent termination of his contract on the grounds that he was driving while intoxicated was unlawful for several reasons.

The complaint alleges that Uber failed to provide a safe working environment free from sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"),¹ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. , and D.C. Code § 50-301.29a ; that Uber discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his status as a recovering alcoholic in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 – 12117 ; and that Uber violated the requirements of D.C. Code § 50-301.29a – which governs the investigation of allegations of impropriety in for-hire vehicles – when it terminated plaintiff's contract based on an inadequate investigation. Am. Compl. at 7.

After removing the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1), 1367, 1441, and 1446, Uber moved to compel the arbitration of all of plaintiff's claims except for those alleging sexual harassment. Def.’s Mot. to Compel Arbitration of Pl.’s Compl. [Dkt. # 6]; Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s Sexual Harassment Claims [Dkt. # 13] ("Mot. to Dismiss") at 1. With respect to those claims, defendant has filed the instant motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mot. to Dismiss at 1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has opposed the motion. Pl.’s Mem. of P. & A. in Opp. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 17] ("Pl.’s Opp."). Because the amended complaint, considered in conjunction with all of the plaintiff's pleadings in this case, does not plausibly allege that plaintiff is an employee of the defendant as opposed to an independent contractor, it does not state a claim for a Title VII violation, and defendant's motion to dismiss the sexual harassment claims will be granted. The claims brought pursuant to D.C. Code § 50-301.29a also fail as that provision does not give rise to a private cause of action. Whether the rest of the claims are subject to arbitration will be addressed in a separate Memorandum Opinion. The Court notes that nothing in this opinion should be read as expressing any point of view about the truthfulness of plaintiff's allegations concerning the interaction with passenger Grayson: the dismissal of these claims is based solely on the face of the complaint, accepting it as true and applying the legal authorities. Nor does this opinion express any doubt about whether plaintiff has suffered the damages he alleges; the only question that has been considered at this stage is whether he has stated a proper legal basis for his lawsuit.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff drove a for-hire vehicle in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area for "[o]ver three years," using defendant's mobile application ("Uber App") to connect with riders. See Am. Compl. at 14. On June 3, 2018, plaintiff connected with Grayson using the Uber App. Am. Compl. at. 14. Plaintiff alleges that during that ride, Grayson took "his shot" at him and engaged in "sexually suggestive behavior." Am. Compl. at 14. Plaintiff states that he responded by "minimiz[ing] interaction," to protect himself and to protect Grayson "from the discomfort of disinterest." Am. Compl. at 14. Plaintiff characterizes Grayson's behavior as "wanting to play," but he does not specify what Grayson said or did, and he provides few details about the interaction. Am. Compl. at 6, 14. According to plaintiff, at the end of the ride, Grayson accused plaintiff of driving drunk, and he subsequently filed a formal complaint with Uber. Ex. E to Am. Compl. [Dkt. # 9] at 20. Plaintiff avers that he was not intoxicated during the interaction with Grayson; indeed, he insists that he has been sober for nineteen twenty years. Am. Compl. at 2 n.2, 10–12.

In response to Grayson's allegation and pursuant to D.C. Code § 50-301.29a(9)(B), Uber suspended plaintiff's Uber account while it conducted an investigation. See Ex. E to Am. Compl. at 20. The next day, June 4, Uber terminated its partnership with plaintiff after "complet[ing] a full review of [his] account and identif[ying] similar reports from past riders." Ex. F to Am. Compl. [Dkt. # 9] at 21. Plaintiff alleges that Uber's investigation into the allegation did not satisfy the standard required by D.C. Code § 50-301.29a(9)(C).² Am. Compl. at 10.

Plaintiff's position is that Grayson made the drunk driving accusation in retaliation for plaintiff's rejection of his advances, and according to the complaint, the allegation itself constitutes sexual harassment on Grayson's part. Am. Compl. at 5. He attributes responsibility to Uber as well, and the complaint also alleges that Uber has "fail[ed] to ensure a work environment safe from sexual harassment." Am. Compl. at 1. Plaintiff claims that by terminating its relationship with him based on Grayson's allegation, Uber "defame[d] the Plaintiff as an alcoholic and or illegal drug user ..." and "... materially threaten[ed] his safety and livelihood with a frivolous claim with severe legal implications." EEOC Compl. ¶¶ 32–33; Am. Compl. at 11–12 (citing EEOC Compl.).

Plaintiff identifies what he labels as "questions under [the] law" in his amended complaint, and he appears to predicate his sexual harassment claim on two statutory provisions. See Am. Compl. at 6–7. He argues that Uber had a responsibility to establish a work environment "free from racial and sexual harassment for both rider and driver" pursuant to Title VII and D.C. Code § 50-301.29a(10)(A)(ii). Am. Compl. at 6–7. In moving to dismiss, defendant contends that plaintiff is an independent contractor and, therefore, does not qualify for the legal protections that Title VII provides to employees. Def.’s Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 13-1] ("Def.’s Mem.") at 2. It further argues that D.C. Code section 50-301.29a does not give rise to an express or implied private right of action, and that plaintiff therefore has no standing to sue under that provision. Def.’s Mem. at 2. The motion to dismiss does not address plaintiff's other theories for relief.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"To survive a [ Rule 12(b)(6) ] motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). In Iqbal , the Supreme Court reiterated the two principles underlying its decision in Twombly : "First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. And "[s]econd, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss." Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

A claim is facially plausible when the pleaded factual content "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. A pleading must offer more than "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action," id. , quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id.

In evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must "treat the complaint's factual allegations as true and must grant plaintiff ‘the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.’ " Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc. , 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted), quoting Schuler v. United States , 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ; see also Am. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. FDIC , 642 F.3d 1137, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2011), quoting Thomas v. Principi , 394 F.3d 970, 972 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Therefore, when considering a motion to dismiss, a court must construe a complaint liberally in the plaintiff's favor. Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp. , 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

Furthermore, in a case where the plaintiff proceeds pro se , the complaint, " ‘however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’ " Erickson , 551 U.S. at 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, quoting Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). In other words, the Court can assure plaintiff that it does not expect a pro se litigant to write with "the same polish" as someone trained as a lawyer. See Plaintiff's Letter to the Court [Dkt. 11]. Nevertheless, ...