{"id":2967,"date":"2026-05-28T17:39:59","date_gmt":"2026-05-28T21:39:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2967"},"modified":"2026-05-28T17:40:00","modified_gmt":"2026-05-28T21:40:00","slug":"u-s-supreme-court-delivers-arbitration-exemption-to-last-mile-local-drivers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/05\/28\/u-s-supreme-court-delivers-arbitration-exemption-to-last-mile-local-drivers\/","title":{"rendered":"U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Arbitration Exemption To Last-Mile Local Drivers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Eden Anderson, Rebecca Bjork, Ryan T. Garippo, and Olga A. Romadin<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>On May 28, 2026, in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, 2026 WL 1485669 (U.S. May 28, 2026), and in a much-anticipated ruling following a grant of certiorari from the 10th Circuit\u2019s decision<\/a> in Brock v. Flowers Foods, Inc., 121 F. 4th 753 (10th Cir. 2024), Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a unanimous opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court that affirmed<\/a> the applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act (the \u201cFAA\u201d) transportation worker exemption for \u201clast-mile\u201d delivery drivers. Today\u2019s opinion builds on the Supreme Court\u2019s prior decisions in Southwest Airlines Company v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022), and\u00a0Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park Street, LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024, to expand the FAA exemption for transportation workers seeking to bypass arbitration.\u00a0 The decision has significant implications for companies who employ delivery drivers and the logistics industry generally, and will play an important factor in re-shaping the arena of class and collective action litigation.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Angelo Brock, a Denver-based delivery franchisee who had purchased distribution rights to baked goods produced by Flowers Foods, Inc. (known as a \u201clast-mile\u201d delivery driver), brought a putative class and collective action in a Colorado federal district court alleging that Flowers Foods had underpaid its franchisees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (\u201cFLSA\u201d) and state laws.  Id.<\/em> at *2.  \u201cBrock picks up [Flowers Foods\u2019] products from a warehouse in Colorado and delivers them to local stores, all without leaving the State.\u201d  Id<\/em>.  He also signed an arbitration agreement.  Id<\/em>.  As a result, Flowers Foods filed a motion to compel arbitration under the terms of the agreement that it entered into with its franchisees, which the district court denied, citing 9 U.S.C. \u00a7 1., which exempts workers engaged in interstate commerce, and is commonly known as the FAA\u2019s transportation worker exemption.  Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In denying Flowers Foods\u2019 motion, the district court concluded that Brock fell within the \u2018\u2018transportation worker exemption\u201d of \u00a7 1 of the FAA, which exempts transportation workers who engaged in interstate commerce from arbitration.  Thus, even though Brock did not cross state lines, the district court reasoned that he had engaged in the transportation of the company\u2019s products \u2013 which were created outside of the state \u2013 because he delivered those products in Colorado.  Id.<\/em>  As a result, the district court declined to compel arbitration.  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following an appeal of that decision by Flowers Foods, which argued that a worker who does not leave the state, like Brock, does not qualify for the exemption, the 10th Circuit affirmed the district court\u2019s decision based on its determination that Brock\u2019s \u201cintrastate route formed a constituent part of the . . .  interstate journey\u201d of the cross-border delivery of Flowers Foods\u2019s products.  Id<\/em>.  Flowers Foods then sought review from the U.S. Supreme Court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Supreme Court granted Flowers Foods\u2019 petition for writ of certiorari and sought to answer the question of whether a worker can fall under the \u201ctransportation worker exemption\u201d for interstate workers under \u00a7 1 of the FAA if they neither cross state lines nor interact with vehicles that do.  Id.<\/em> at *3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a unanimous decision, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch authored the 8-page opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court that affirmed the 10th Circuit\u2019s ruling and held that \u201ctransportation workers\u201d are exempt from the reach of the FAA, citing the statutory text, historical use, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court cited its three recent decisions addressing \u00a7 1 of the FAA, including New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira<\/em>, 586 U.S. 105 (2019), Southwest Airlines Company v. Saxon<\/em>, 596 U.S. 450 (2022), and Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park Street., LLC<\/em>, 601 U.S. 246 (2024), to reject Flowers Food\u2019s argument that in order to qualify for the exemption, a worker must cross state lines or engage with a vehicle that does.  Id.<\/em>  Based on the statutory text, the Supreme Court found nothing in the language of the FAA requiring crossing state lines or interacting with a vehicle that does so.   Under the definition for \u201cinterstate commerce\u201d provided by Black\u2019s Law Dictionary, the Supreme Court further noted, the transportation of goods between states includes intrastate activity. Id.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court also cited historic use of \u201cinterstate commerce\u201d by referencing case law from the 19th and early 20th centuries, including discussing a case concerning steamship transportation of goods called The Daniel Ball<\/em>, 10 Wall. 557 (1871), where the Supreme Court had found that a steamer that operated in one state without direct contact with other vessels transporting the goods into other states was found to engage in interstate transportation because the goods were destined for other states. Id.<\/em> at *4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further, the Supreme Court rejected Flowers Foods’ argument that prior precedent was erroneously based on the U.S. Constitution\u2019s Commerce Clause, and not the FAA.\u00a0 The Supreme Court noted that the similarity in the language between the Clause and \u00a7 1 were \u201cprobative\u201d of the common conception of the meaning of the term used by both at the time that the FAA was enacted. Id.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the Supreme Court declined to find that the distribution agreement between Flowers Foods and Brock was relevant to the analysis.  The Supreme Court did not find any significance to the fact that the agreement was signed by Brock\u2019s independent company, and thus affirmed the judgment of the 10th Circuit by expanding the transportation worker exemption to individuals who do not travel to other states or come into contact with vehicles that do.  Id.<\/em> at *5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we predicted in a previous post in October 2025 (here – blog post<\/a>), the Supreme Court\u2019s decision is highly significant for logistics companies and deliver driver employees.  This decision further expands the \u201ctransportation worker exemption\u201d to make it much more difficult for employers to compel arbitration in class and collective actions brought by workers in transportation and transportation-adjacent positions. The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision, which was designed to prevent an analysis that hinges on \u201cgame of tag\u201d with vehicles engaged interstate commerce, now has the potential to sweep in a wide variety of workers whose conduct is only tangentially related to movement of a company\u2019s products across state lines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite this blow to employers\u2019 arbitration defenses, there are still some arguments for companies to assert in order to maintain their arbitration programs.  By its own terms, the Supreme Court\u2019s opinion is limited to whether \u00a7 1 requires a bright line rule that workers who \u201cnever cross[] state lines and never interact[] with vehicles that do\u201d are outside of the FAA exemption and does not opine on whether a worker could be so attenuated from interstate commerce that they fall outside the scope of the exemption.  Further, some arbitration agreements may be enforceable under state law and, therefore, the choice of law provisions in those these agreements will likely be the difference maker in whether a class action will survive a motion to compel arbitration or not.  As a result, corporate counsel \u2013 particularly in the logistics industry \u2013 should follow the developments in this space closely, because their arbitration programs are under siege and a new wave of class actions is likely headed for their organizations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Eden Anderson, Rebecca Bjork, Ryan T. Garippo, and Olga A. Romadin Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0\u00a0On May 28, 2026, in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, 2026 WL 1485669 (U.S. May 28, 2026), and in a much-anticipated ruling following a grant of certiorari from the 10th Circuit\u2019s decision in Brock … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Arbitration Exemption To Last-Mile Local Drivers”<\/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":[164],"tags":[169],"ppma_author":[7,9,92,11,127,156],"class_list":["post-2967","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-transportation-litigation","tag-federal-arbitration-act"],"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":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-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":""},{"term_id":127,"user_id":692,"is_guest":0,"slug":"rgarippo","display_name":"Ryan Garippo","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/09\/garipporyan-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":156,"user_id":756,"is_guest":0,"slug":"oromadin","display_name":"Olga Romadin","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/02\/romadinolga-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\/2967","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=2967"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2967\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2967"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2967"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2967"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2967"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}