On
Despite its narrow holding, the Bissonnette decision is important for companies with employee arbitration agreements to understand, as plaintiff-employees, trying to sidestep arbitration, have creatively pushed the boundaries of the "transportation worker" exemption. While the
The Bissonnette Opinion
Petitioner-plaintiffs Bissonnette and Wojnarowski were franchisees who owned the rights to distribute defendant bakeries' products in certain parts of
After Bissonnette and Wojnarowski brought a putative class action suit in federal court, defendants moved to compel arbitration. Bissonnette and Wojnarowski argued that they fell under the transportation worker exemption of the FAA, which provides that "nothing [in the FAA] shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." 9 U.S.C. § 1. But the district court disagreed and granted the motion to compel arbitration. The Second Circuit affirmed on the ground that Bissonnette and Wojnarowski "are in the bakery industry," and "the FAA exempts only 'workers involved in the transportation industries.'" 144 S. Ct. at 909-10.
The
Notably, Bissonnette reemphasized the narrow scope of the transportation worker exemption. The Court rejected defendants' argument that its holding would exempt "virtually all workers who load or unload goods" from arbitration, noting that it has "never understood § 1 to define the class of exempt workers in such limitless terms." Id. at 912-13. Instead, the Court reiterated the requirement that an exempt worker "must at least play a direct and necessary role in the free flow of goods across borders." Id. at 913 (internal quotation marks omitted). This requirement "undermine[s] any attempt to give the provision a sweeping, open-ended construction." Id.
Impact of Bissonnette and Unresolved Issues
Bissonnette does not significantly change the existing law surrounding the transportation worker exemption. It simply reiterates Saxon's holding that, in determining whether the exemption applies to a class of employees, courts should focus on "what [the employees] do, not for whom they do it." Id. at 912. Just as the plaintiff in Saxon did not fall within the exemption simply because she worked for an airline, the plaintiffs in Bissonnette did not fall outside the exemption simply because they worked with baked goods. The Section 1 knife cuts both ways.
Bissonnette is perhaps more notable for the questions it did not resolve. For example, the Court expressed no opinion on the argument that "petitioners are not 'engaged in foreign or interstate commerce' within the meaning of § 1 because they deliver baked goods only in
The Bissonnette Court also declined to address "whether Bissonnette and Wojnarowski qualify as transportation workers based on the work that they perform," id. at 910 n.2, though it did note that the petitioners' jobs "extended beyond carrying [ ] products from Point A to
Finally, while Bissonnette clarifies that an employee's industry is not a dispositive factor in the Section 1 analysis, some case law suggests it may still be a relevant factor.2
Key Takeaways
While the
- Plaintiffs may try to avoid arbitration agreements by arguing that the Bissonnette decision expands the scope of Section 1 and applies to all employees involved in the transportation of goods.
- Bissonnette may not be the last word regarding the transportation worker exemption, and we can expect to see additional judicial refinement as the exemption is further tested in courts across the country.
- Employers should consider reviewing their current arbitration agreements in light of the decision and assess whether revisions or updates should be made to ensure their enforceability.
Footnotes
1. Compare
2. Both the First and Ninth Circuits have noted that "[] nature of the business for which a class of workers perform their activities must inform" the question of whether the employee is within a class of workers "engaged ... in interstate commerce." See Rittmann v.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
Arnold & Porter
601 Mass. Ave., NW
DC 20001-3743
Tel: 202942.5000
Fax: 202942.5999
E-mail: anna.shelkin@arnoldporter.com
URL: www.arnoldporter.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2024 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source