A pizza delivery driver sued Papa John's under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claiming that he'd been under-reimbursed for his vehicle expenses, an omission that reduced his pay under the minimum wage. Papa John's sought to compel arbitration, a forum where it expected an advantage. Papa John's relied on a electronic document that it claimed the driver had signed electronically when he was hired. The driver swore he "had never seen" the arbitration agreement and "had never heard about it." He asked for targeted discovery regarding whether he had actually signed the electronic document. The case is Bazemore v. Papa John's.
U.S. District Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings saw it Papa John's way and accused the driver of "a convenient lapse in memory."
The Sixth Circuit reversed, observing that "we see no reason whatever that would prevent a reasonable factfinder from believing [the driver's] testimony -- which means that his testimony created an issue of fact." The district court made two other errors: (1) putting the burden of proof on the driver instead of Papa John's to prove an agreement existed; and, (2) excessive nitpicking about the driver's sworn statement in an assertion that he did not say, specifically, that he had not signed the document. But the Sixth Circuit had none of that, since "a reasonable factfinder could plainly infer that, if [the driver] had not seen the agreement, he had not signed it either."
Judge Jennings stepped out of her role here and took Papa John's side and, for her trouble, got reversed. But the driver, who Judge Jennings has accused of being unbelievable, has to negotiate a hearing where Judge Jennings is the factfinder. It seems the driver faces an uphill battle.
Federal court has become the place where ordinary people as plaintiffs go to die.
And so it goes.
Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com
