MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Case 1:20-CV-05858

Sep 19, 2026

Upload by Maeve

Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a proposed collective and class action brought by Samantha Young on behalf of herself and others against Shipt, Inc. Young alleges misclassification as independent contractors, which allegedly prevents receipt of wages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Shipt seeks dismissal based on improper venue, contending the dispute must be resolved through mandatory, binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages13

Reading Time5 min

AccessFree to download

Background

Shipt’s business model and agreements

Legal Standard

Venue dismissal and evidentiary assumptions

Analysis

Enforceability of arbitration provisions

Case: 1:20-cv-05858 Document \#: 42 Filed: 09/27/21 Page 1 of 13 PageID \#: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SAMANTHA YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. SHIPT, INC., Defendant. )) )) )) )) )) ) No. 1:20-CV-05858 Judge Edmond E. Chang MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Samantha Young is a former shopper, driver, and delivery person (she calls herself and others like her “Shoppers”) for Shipt, Inc., a technology company that connects retail customers to local merchants and Shoppers for same-day, local selecting, purchasing, and delivery of groceries and household goods. Young alleges that she and her fellow Shoppers have been classified by Shipt as independent contractors, blocking them from receiving certain wages that are due to them. Young brings this proposed class action against Shipt, seeking additional wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U. S. C. § 216(b); the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1, et seq. ; and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), 820 ILCS 115/1, et seq.1 Shipt has moved to dismiss the case for improper venue, arguing that 1This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims in this case under 28 U. S. C. § 1331. Citations to the docket are indicated by “R.” followed by the docket entry and page or paragraph number. Case: 1:20-cv-05858 Document \#: 42 Filed: 09/27/21 Page 2 of 13 PageID \#: Young’s claims must be resolved via arbitration. For the reasons explained in the Opinion, Shipt is right: the claims must be arbitrated. I. Background Shipt is a technology company that provides online grocery-shopping and delivery services. R. 1, Compl. ¶ 6. The company describes itself as connecting customers and Shoppers via the Shipt Marketplace Application to facilitate same-day, ondemand retail shopping and delivery services in major metropolitan areas, including in Illinois. R. 26-1, April Hutchins Declaration ¶¶ 5–7. Customers place orders for goods using Shipt’s platform. Id. ¶ 4. The platform then notifies nearby Shoppers of the customer’s order. Id. If a Shopper chooses to accept the order, then they will visit the store, locate and purchase the selected items, and (if requested by the customer) provide same-day, local delivery. Id. Moving away from the Shipt-customer-Shopper relationship, the Shipt-Shopper relationship is governed by an Independent Contractor Services Agreement (Shipt labels this agreement by its acronym, ICSA) . Hutchins Decl. ¶ 14. This is the agreement that Young alleges misclassifies her and other Shoppes as an independent contractor. Shipt sends potential Shoppers the ICSA through HelloSign, a program that facilitates the electronic exchange of signed documents. Id. ¶ 15. Shoppers are also provided a separate, optional Arbitration Agreement. Id. ¶ 14. Young signed both the ICSA and the Arbitration Agreement in April 2019. Id. ¶ 19. Young worked as a Shopper for Shipt from April 2019 through August 2019. Compl. ¶ 5. Young filed this proposed collective and class action, alleging that Shipt Case: 1:20-cv-05858 Document \#: 42 Filed: 09/27/21 Page 3 of 13 PageID \#: misclassified its drivers as independent contractors and violated the wage-and-hour requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Id. ¶¶ 1, 15. Shipt now moves to dismiss the action under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §§ 3–4, arguing that the case is in the wrong venue, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) . Specifically, Shipt asserts that the Arbitration Agreement declares that “any and all disputes, claims, or controversies” arising out the relationship between Young and Shipt must “be resolved through mandatory, binding arbitration.”R. 26-5, Def.’s Arbitration Agr. § 1. Young declined to opt out of

FAQs

What claims does Samantha Young bring against Shipt, Inc.?

Young brings a proposed collective and class action alleging that Shipt misclassified her and other Shoppers as independent contractors, allegedly violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Why does Shipt ask the court to dismiss the case?

Shipt argues dismissal for improper venue, asserting that the Arbitration Agreement requires any disputes arising from the relationship to be resolved through mandatory, binding arbitration.

What standard does the court apply when evaluating a motion to dismiss based on an arbitration clause?

The Seventh Circuit treats such a motion as an objection to venue, requiring the court to assume the truth of the plaintiff’s factual allegations and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor unless the defense offers contrary evidence.

Sep 19, 2026

Upload by Maeve