Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that workers do not need to work for a transportation company to be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court found that the exemption depends on the specific work the employees do, such as delivering goods across state lines, rather than the general business of their employer. This decision overturned a lower court ruling that had forced bakery drivers into private arbitration because they worked for a food company instead of a trucking firm.

This ruling makes it easier for thousands of delivery drivers and logistics workers to sue their employers in open court rather than being forced into private arbitration. For example, a driver delivering bread for a bakery can now skip arbitration just like a driver for a major shipping company. This shift gives workers more leverage in disputes over pay, benefits, and working conditions.

For years, companies have used the Federal Arbitration Act to keep worker disputes out of the public court system. While the law has a specific exemption for transportation workers, lower courts were divided on whether that only applied to traditional shipping companies. This case clarifies that the nature of the job itself is what triggers the legal protection.

The Court reached a unanimous 9-0 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion for the full Court.

“A 'class of workers' is properly defined based on what a worker does for an employer, 'not what [the employer] does generally.'”

Transportation workers are exempt from forced arbitration based on their specific job duties, regardless of whether their employer is part of the transportation industry.

The case now returns to the lower courts to proceed without the requirement for forced arbitration. Legal experts will watch how other industries, like online retail or food service, adjust their contracts for delivery staff. Companies may try to rewrite their agreements to find new ways to keep disputes in private arbitration.

The drivers wanted to sue the company in court for labor violations. The company argued that the drivers signed contracts requiring them to use private arbitration instead.

Workers who move goods across state lines can now avoid forced arbitration. This applies even if they work for companies that primarily make products rather than ship them.

The Court ruled that the Section 1 exemption depends on the worker's role. It does not matter if the employer is officially in the transportation industry.

The Supreme Court vacated (canceled) the lower court's ruling. The case will now go back to the lower court to be heard under the new standard.

This continues a trend of the Court defining which workers are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act. It limits the ability of companies to force all employees into private systems.