Clark v. City of Seattle, No. 17-35693 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action brought by for-hire drivers challenging a Seattle ordinance that establishes a multistep collective bargaining process between "driver-coordinators," such as Uber and Lyft, and for-hire drivers who contract with those companies. The panel held that the drivers' claims under the National Labor Relations Act were unripe because they failed to allege an injury in fact that was concrete and particularized. In this case, even assuming arguendo that the disclosure of drivers' personal information to the union under the ordinance was imminent, the disclosure was neither a concrete nor a particularized injury. Furthermore, no contract or agreement was imminent. The court also held that the drivers' First Amendment claims were unripe for the same reasons.
Court Description: Labor Law The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal as unripe of an action brought by for-hire drivers, challenging a Seattle ordinance that establishes a multistep collective- bargaining process between “driver-coordinators,” such as Uber Technologies and Lyft, Inc., and for-hire drivers who contract with those companies. The drivers contended that the ordinance was preempted by §§ 8(b)(4) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act and that the ordinance violated the drivers’ First Amendment rights. The panel held that the drivers’ NLRA claims were constitutionally unripe because they did not allege an injury in fact that was concrete and particularized. The panel concluded that disclosure of the drivers’ personal information to a union was neither a concrete nor a
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.