Supreme Court Should Narrowly Interpret Federal Arbitration Act’s “Transportation Workers” Exemption
Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) mandates that arbitration agreements “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. Section 1 of the FAA, however, exempts “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 1 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court held in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246, 256 (2024), that a worker “need not work in the transportation industry to fall within the exemption.” The Court expressly reserved, however, the question of whether workers who “do not drive across state lines,” such as workers who locally deliver out-of-state goods, fall within the § 1 exemption. Id. at 256 n.2.
The certiorari petition in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock (24-935) squarely presents this unresolved issue, which sometimes is described as the “final mile” question. Under a distribution agreement with Flowers Foods, Brock, Inc., a company that operates entirely within Colorado, picks up, and delivers to its customers in Colorado, baked goods that Flowers produces elsewhere but has delivered to, and unloaded at, a warehouse in Colorado. When Brock sued Flowers Foods over a contractual issue, Flowers Foods moved to compel arbitration in accordance with the distribution agreement’s arbitration provisions. The district court dismissed the motion to compel on the ground that Brock is covered by the § 1 exemption. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, and Flowers Foods then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.
ALF has joined the DRI Center for Law and Public Policy in an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant review and decide the unresolved “final mile” issue. The brief was drafted by Sarah Elizabeth Spencer of Spencer Willson PLLC. ALF Executive Vice President & General Counsel Larry Ebner worked with Sarah as co-counsel on the brief.
The amicus brief argues that the FAA § 1 exemption should be interpreted in accordance with its “original meaning” when enacted in 1925. The exemption’s original meaning demonstrates that Congress intended it to be limited to railroad employees, seamen, and other workers engaged in moving goods across state lines or international borders. Local delivery workers who do not cross state borders, therefore, are not covered by the exemption even though they deliver out-of-state goods. Any other interpretation would defeat the purpose of the FAA by exempting countless workers in numerous industries from arbitration as an alternative to litigation.
Are workers who deliver locally goods that travel in interstate commerce—but who do not transport the goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that cross borders—“transportation workers” “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” for purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act’s § 1 exemption?
Status:
Petition-stage briefing is underway.
Contact:
Email ALF Executive Vice President & General Counsel Lawrence Ebner.
