Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. ___ (2024)
Neal Bissonnette and Tyler Wojnarowski, distributors for Flowers Foods, Inc., a major producer and marketer of baked goods, sued the company for alleged violations of state and federal wage laws. Flowers Foods moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The key issue was whether the exemption from coverage under the FAA for any "class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" is limited to workers whose employers are in the transportation industry.
The District Court dismissed the case in favor of arbitration, stating that for Bissonnette and Wojnarowski to be exempt from the FAA, they must be "transportation workers." The court concluded that their broader scope of responsibility under the Distributor Agreements belied the claim that they were primarily truck drivers. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision on the alternative ground that Bissonnette and Wojnarowski "are in the bakery industry." According to the Second Circuit, §1 of the FAA exempts only "workers involved in the transportation industries."
The Supreme Court of the United States disagreed with the Second Circuit's interpretation. The Court held that a transportation worker does not need to work for a company in the transportation industry to be exempt under §1 of the FAA. The Court emphasized that the relevant question is what the worker does for the employer, not what the employer does generally. The Court vacated the judgment of the Second Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Court did not express an opinion on any alternative grounds in favor of arbitration raised below.
A transportation worker does not need to work in the transportation industry to fall within the exemption from the Federal Arbitration Act provided by §1 of the Act.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
BISSONNETTE et al. v. LePAGE BAKERIES PARK ST., LLC, et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit
No. 23–51. Argued February 20, 2024—Decided April 12, 2024
Respondent Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets baked goods that are distributed nationwide. Petitioners Neal Bissonnette and Tyler Wojnarowski owned the rights to distribute Flowers products in certain parts of Connecticut. To purchase those rights, they entered into contracts with Flowers that require any disputes to be arbitrated under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq. After petitioners sued Flowers and two of its subsidiaries for violating state and federal wage laws, Flowers moved to compel arbitration. Petitioners responded that they are exempt from coverage under the FAA because they fall within an exception in §1 of the Act for “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” The District Court dismissed the case in favor of arbitration, concluding that petitioners were not “transportation workers” exempt from the Act under §1. The Second Circuit ultimately affirmed on the ground that the §1 exemption was available only to workers in the transportation industry, but that petitioners were in the bakery industry. 49 F. 4th 655, 661–662.
Held: A transportation worker need not work in the transportation industry to be exempt from coverage under §1 of the FAA. Pp. 4–9.
(a) The Court has long recognized that the exemption in §1 is limited to transportation workers. See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105. Applying the ejusdem generis canon of statutory interpretation to §1, the Court in Circuit City read the general phrase “class of workers engaged in . . . commerce” to be “controlled and defined by reference to” the specific categories “seamen” and “railroad employees” that precede it. Id., at 115. The Court concluded that the “linkage” between “seamen” and “railroad employees” is that they are both transportation workers, id., at 118–119, 121, and the Court thus interpreted the class of workers in the residual clause of §1 to be limited in the same way.
The Court again considered the scope of the residual clause in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon and declined to adopt an industrywide approach to §1, rejecting the employee’s claim that she was a member of a “class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” simply because she worked for an airline and carried out its customary work. See 596 U.S. 450, 460. Instead, the language of §1—referring to “ ‘workers’ ” who are “engaged” in commerce—focuses on the performance of work rather than the industry of the employer. Id., at 456 (quoting New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U.S. 105, 116). The relevant question was what the employee does at the airline, not what the airline does generally. Saxon, 596 U. S., at 456.
Here the Second Circuit fashioned its transportation-industry requirement without any guide in the text of §1 or this Court’s precedents. The Second Circuit decided that an entity would be considered within the transportation industry if it “pegs its charges chiefly to the movement of goods or passengers” and its “predominant source of commercial revenue is generated by that movement.” 49 F.4th, at 661. But that test would often turn on arcane riddles about the nature of a company’s services. For example, does a pizza delivery company derive its revenue mainly from pizza or delivery? Extensive discovery might be necessary before deciding a motion to compel arbitration, adding expense and delay to every FAA case. That “complexity and uncertainty” would “ ‘breed[ ] litigation from a statute that seeks to avoid it.’ ” Circuit City, 532 U. S., at 123 (quoting Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 275). Pp. 4–7.
(b) Flowers argues that the §1 exemption would sweep too broadly without an implied transportation-industry requirement. Because “virtually all products move in interstate commerce,” Flowers warns that nearly all workers who load or unload goods would be exempt from arbitration. But §1 does not define the class of exempt workers in such limitless terms. Instead, as the Court held in Saxon, a transportation worker is one who is “actively” “ ‘engaged in transportation’ of . . . goods across borders via the channels of foreign or interstate commerce.” 596 U. S., at 458 (quoting Circuit City, 532 U. S., at 121). In other words, a transportation worker “must at least play a direct and ‘necessary role in the free flow of goods’ across borders.” 596 U. S., at 458 (quoting Circuit City, 532 U. S., at 121). These requirements “undermine[ ] any attempt to give the provision a sweeping, open-ended construction,” instead limiting §1 to its appropriately “narrow” scope. Id., at 118. Pp. 7–9.
49 F. 4th 655, vacated and remanded.
Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. |
Argued. For petitioners: Jennifer D. Bennett, San Francisco, Cal. For respondents: Traci L. Lovitt, New York, N. Y. |
Record received from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The record is electronic and is available on PACER. |
Reply of petitioners Neal Bissonnette, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Reply of Neal Bissonnette, et al. submitted. |
CIRCULATED. |
Record received electronically from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and available with the Clerk. |
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, February 20, 2024. |
Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. |
Amicus brief of DRI Center for Law and Public Policy submitted. |
Amicus brief of The California Employment Law Council submitted. |
Amicus brief of Professors Samuel Estreicher and David Sherwyn submitted. |
Amicus brief of Independent Bakers Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of Amazon.com, Inc. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Retail Federation, and American Bakers Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of Restaurant Law Center submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of The California Employment Law Council filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Amazon.com, Inc. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Restaurant Law Center filed. |
Brief amici curiae of DRI Center for Law and Public Policy, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Independent Bakers Association filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Professors Samuel Estreicher, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed. |
Amicus brief of Washington Legal Foundation submitted. |
Brief of LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, et al. submitted. |
Brief of respondents LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, et al. filed. |
Amicus brief of Illinois et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of American Association for Justice submitted. |
Amicus brief of National Academy of Arbitrators submitted. |
Amicus brief of Public Justice submitted. |
Amicus brief of Constitutional Accountability Center submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Illinois et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Illinois, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of American Association for Justice filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of National Academy of Arbitrators filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Public Justice filed. |
Amicus brief of National Employment Law Project and National Employment Lawyers Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of National Employment Law Project and National Employment Lawyers Association submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of National Employment Law Project, et al. filed. |
Brief of Neal Bissonnette, et al. submitted. |
Joint Appendix submitted. |
Joint appendix filed. |
Brief of petitioners Neal Bissonnette, et al. filed. |
Petition GRANTED. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023. |
Reply of petitioners Neal Bissonnette, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief of respondents LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, et al. in opposition filed. |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 21, 2023) |
Application (22A984) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until July 17, 2023. |
Application (22A984) to extend further the time from June 15, 2023 to July 15, 2023, submitted to Justice Sotomayor. |
Application (22A984) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until June 15, 2023. |
Application (22A984) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 16, 2023 to June 15, 2023, submitted to Justice Sotomayor. |