Supreme Court Weighs Exemption from Arbitration for Commercial Truck Drivers

In Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., the Supreme Court will decide whether a class of workers engaged in interstate transportation must also be employed specifically by a company in the transportation industry to be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Petitioners Neil Bissonnette and Tyler Wojnarowski are commercial truck drivers who work full time for a bakery conglomerate (Flowers) hauling goods and other packaged baked items in Connecticut. Bissonnette and Wojnarowski, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, sued Flowers for violating state and federal wage laws, alleging that they had been misclassified as independent contractors. Flowers moved to compel arbitration under a clause in its distributor agreement, but the plaintiffs argued that they were exempt from the arbitration clause under a provision of the FAA that exempts those “engaged in interstate commerce.” The district court found that the plaintiffs were not transportation workers for purposes of the FAA. The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that to be exempt under the FAA, one must be employed by a company in a transportation industry.

In the briefing, the plaintiffs argued that the FAA’s exemption clause focuses on the “actual work” a class of workers perform, not who employs them. They argued that the Second Circuit’s ruling goes against recent Supreme Court decisions and that common sense supports their reading of the FAA. In response, Flowers argued that the historical context of the exemption, which was meant mostly for seamen and railroad workers, shows that it does not apply to independent commercial truck drivers like the plaintiffs. Flowers also argued that reading the FAA exemption to include independent commercial truck drivers would unreasonably open up the exemption to many broad categories of workers, including restaurant delivery drivers and even grocery store clerks.

During oral argument, Justice Kavanaugh questioned why it was incorrect to look to the common legal context that connected workers like seamen and railroad workers in answering the question presented. Although recognizing that the question was not before the Court, Justice Sotomayor questioned whether the exemption should apply to non-traditional transportation workers like those in office-based positions. Chief Justice Roberts questioned the foundation of the Second Circuit’s definition of the transportation industry.

The case was argued on February 20, 2024. A decision is expected later in the term. Stay tuned for Dykema’s client alert discussing the Court’s opinion.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Cory Webster, Christopher Sakauye, McKenna Crisp, Monika Harris, or Puja Valera.