A federal judge in Pennsylvania today ruled that Uber cannot use an arbitration clause in an employment agreement to halt a Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) investigation into former driver Kevin Boddie's discrimination claims.

U.S. District Judge John F. Murphy rejected Uber's request to make Boddie's case go to arbitration. Boddie claims the company treated him illegally after uncovering a 16-year-old criminal conviction. Boddie has uncovered Uber's discriminatory behavior, claiming it violates age and sex discrimination laws.Federal Judge to Rule on Arbitration IssueOddie argued that his employment agreement with Uber required him to drop his complaints and go to arbitration. However, Judge Murphy ruled Friday that the PHRC claim, according to a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court case called Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., cannot be submitted to arbitration required by employee contracts

"If Uber wins, this verdict would eliminate any investigation of Mr. Boddie by the PHRC, " Judge Murphy wrote. He noted that Uber's arbitration agreement stated in black-and-white terms government investigations were okay. And, even aside from the exact language, the court found the Gilmer decision bars administrative claims from being put in arbitration.

Boddie first filed his complaint with the PHRC in 2018, after Uber discovered his old conviction and withdrew his driving privileges. The commission initially closed the case in 2022 but re-opened it in 2023 after Boddie updated his claim--arguing that Uber's background check policy unfairly targets black and Hispanic drivers.Uber later sought an injunction to force arbitration, but Judge Murphy rejected the case, ruling that Uber had misstated a claim.Buddie has been represented by Justice at Work and Outten & Golden LLP, Uber by Littler Mendelson P.C.

The case is Uber Technologies Inc v. Boddie, case number 2:23-cv-03780, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.