UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

______________

No. 21-3234 ______________

JASWINDER SINGH, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, Appellant

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

______________

No. 21-3363 ______________

JAMES CALABRESE; GREGORY CABANILLAS; MATTHEW MECHANIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RAISER, LLC

____________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action Nos. 3-16-cv-03044 and 3-19-cv-18371) District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson ______________

ARGUED: November 8, 2022

Before: JORDAN, SCIRICA, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: April 26, 2023)

Matthew D. Miller Justin L. Swidler [ARGUED] Swartz Swidler 9 Tanner Street, Suite 101 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Counsel for Appellant in No. 21-3234 Catherine E. Anderson Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson 90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Roosevelt N. Nesmith [ARGUED] 363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2-C Montclair, NJ 07042

2 Russell S. Warren, Jr. 473 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Counsel for Appellants in No. 21-3363 Samuel E. Eckman Theane D. Evangelis [ARGUED] Gibson Dunn & Crutcher 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Blaine H. Evanson Gibson Dunn & Crutcher 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92612 Paul C. Lantis Littler Mendelson 1601 Cherry Street Three Parkway, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Counsel for Appellees

_________________

OPINION OF THE COURT _________________

SCIRICA, Circuit Judge.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) compels federal courts to enforce a wide range of arbitration agreements. But it

3 does not apply to arbitration agreements contained in the “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 1. These consolidated appeals ask us to decide whether Uber drivers belong to such a class of workers. We conclude, as have our sister circuits, that they do not. The work of Uber drivers is centered on local transportation. Most Uber drivers have never made a single interstate trip. When Uber drivers do cross state lines, they do so only incidentally, as part of Uber’s fundamentally local transportation business. As a result, they are not “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” for the purposes of § 1 of the FAA. The District Court reached this conclusion in a detailed and carefully reasoned opinion. We will affirm.

I.

The FAA, enacted “in response to a perception that courts were unduly hostile to arbitration,” Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1621 (2018), requires courts to “‘rigorously enforce’ arbitration agreements according to their terms,” Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228, 233 (2013) (citation omitted). But the FAA’s scope is not limitless. Expressly exempted from its coverage are arbitration agreements within the “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 1; Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 109 (2001). Our decision addresses the scope of that final phrase—“any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce”— otherwise known as the “residual clause.”