{"id":1666,"date":"2024-07-23T21:31:40","date_gmt":"2024-07-24T01:31:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1666"},"modified":"2024-07-23T21:31:40","modified_gmt":"2024-07-24T01:31:40","slug":"ninth-circuit-broadly-applies-the-faas-transportation-worker-exemption-to-fueling-technicians-to-green-light-their-class-action-and-side-step-arbitration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/07\/23\/ninth-circuit-broadly-applies-the-faas-transportation-worker-exemption-to-fueling-technicians-to-green-light-their-class-action-and-side-step-arbitration\/","title":{"rendered":"Ninth Circuit Broadly Applies The FAA\u2019s Transportation Worker Exemption To Fueling Technicians To Green Light Their Class Action And Side-Step Arbitration"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Eden E. Anderson, Rebecca S. Bjork, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/em> <\/strong>\u00a0On July 19, 2024, in Lopez v. Aircraft Service International, Inc., Case No. 23-55015 (9th Cir. July 19, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held<\/a> that the Federal Arbitration Act\u2019s (FAA) transportation worker exemption applies to an airplane fueling technician.\u00a0 Even though the technician had no hands-on contacts with goods, the Ninth Circuit held that was not required because fuel is necessary to flying the plane that holds the goods.\u00a0 The decision is yet another from the Ninth Circuit broadly applying the FAA\u2019s transportation worker exemption, in spite of multiple recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court directing narrow that loop hole to mandatory arbitration.\u00a0 The Lopez decision presents an obstacle for employers seeking to enforce arbitration agreements and class action waivers within the Ninth Circuit, thereby opening the door to arguments that workers who do not even handle goods in the stream of commerce are exempt from arbitration if their work somehow supports the mechanism by which the goods travel.<\/em><\/p>\n

Case Background <\/strong><\/p>\n

Danny Lopez worked as a fueling technician at Los Angeles International Airport.\u00a0 He added fuel to airplanes.\u00a0 After Lopez filed a wage & hour class action against his employer, the employer moved to compel arbitration.\u00a0 The district court denied the motion, concluding that Lopez was an exempt transportation worker because he was directly involved in the flow of goods in interstate or foreign commerce.\u00a0 It reasoned that, although Lopez did not handle goods in commerce, he was directly involved in the maintenance of the means by which the goods were transported.\u00a0 The employer appealed on the grounds that the FAA\u2019s transportation worker exemption is to be narrowly construed and that Lopez did not have any hands-on contact with goods and direct participation in their movement.<\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit\u2019s Decision <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit began its analysis by mentioning the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s 2022 decision in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon<\/em>, 596 U.S. 450 (2022).\u00a0 In Saxon<\/em>, the U.S. Supreme Court instructed that the transportation worker exemption is to be narrowly construed and does not turn on the industry within which the work is performed.\u00a0 Saxon<\/em> held that airline ramp agents are nonetheless transportation workers exempt from the FAA because, in loading and unloading cargo onto airplanes, ramp agents play a \u201cdirect and necessary role in the free flow of goods across borders\u201d and are \u201cactively engaged in the transportation of those goods across via the channels of foreign or interstate commerce.\u201d\u00a0Id<\/em>. at 458.\u00a0 Perceiving that the transportation worker exemption continued to be misapplied by lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court repeated this same guidance this year in Bissonnette v. Le Page Bakeries Park St., LLC,<\/em> 601 U.S. 246 (2024), and cautioned that the exemption should not be applied broadly to all workers who load and unload goods as they pass through the stream of interstate commerce.<\/p>\n

While mentioning this recent controlling authority, the Ninth Circuit harkened back to its 2020 analysis of the transportation worker exemption in Rittman v. Amazon.com, Inc<\/em>., 971 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2004), deeming it consistent with Saxon<\/em> and Bissonnette<\/em>.\u00a0 In Rittman<\/em>, the Ninth Circuit held that Amazon delivery drivers making local, last mile deliveries of products from Amazon warehouses to customers\u2019 homes were exempt transportation workers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.\u00a0 Applying \u201cthe analytical approach applied in Rittman<\/em>,\u201d the Ninth Circuit \u00a0concluded that Lopez was an exempt transportation worker because his fueling of airplanes was a \u201cvital component\u201d of the plane\u2019s ability to fly.\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 12.<\/p>\n

Implications Of The Decision <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Lopez<\/em> decision is yet another from the Ninth Circuit broadly applying the FAA\u2019s transportation worker exemption, in spite of multiple recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court directing narrow interpretation.\u00a0 The Lopez<\/em> decision opens the door to arguments that workers who do not even handle goods in the stream of commerce are exempt from arbitration if their work somehow supports the mechanism by which the goods travel.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Eden E. Anderson, Rebecca S. Bjork, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. Duane Morris Takeaways: \u00a0On July 19, 2024, in Lopez v. Aircraft Service International, Inc., Case No. 23-55015 (9th Cir. July 19, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Federal Arbitration Act\u2019s (FAA) transportation worker exemption applies to … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Broadly Applies The FAA\u2019s Transportation Worker Exemption To Fueling Technicians To Green Light Their Class Action And Side-Step Arbitration”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[41],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,92,11],"class_list":["post-1666","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-arbitration-issues"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":92,"user_id":651,"is_guest":0,"slug":"eeanderson","display_name":"Eden Anderson","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/07\/andersoneden-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":11,"user_id":579,"is_guest":0,"slug":"rsbjork","display_name":"Rebecca S. Bjork","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/bjorkrebecca-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1666","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1666"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1666\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1666"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1666"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1666"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1666"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}