花都影视

By Nicholas S. DeMario, Esq.

On May 28, 2026, the United States Supreme Court broadened the Federal Arbitration Act’s (“FAA”) exemption for “last-mile” delivery drivers under 9 U.S.C. §1. In Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 2297, Justice Gorsuch, delivering the opinion of the Court, held that drivers delivering goods on intrastate segments of interstate commerce can fall under the FAA’s exemption even if they do not cross state lines or interact with vehicles that do.

Background

Flowers Foods, Inc. (“Flowers”), one of largest producers of packaged, baked goods in the United States, distributes its products across the country from various bakeries located in nineteen (19) states. To do so, franchisees, who “buy the rights to distribute Flowers’ products in particular geographic territories[,]” deliver Flowers’ products to their final retail destinations. Flowers’ franchisees sign distribution agreements which include a promise to arbitrate any disagreement that may arise between the franchisee and Flowers. Angelo Brock (“Brock”) was one of these franchisees. He picks up Flowers’ products from a Colorado warehouse and delivers them to the Denver, CO, area.

The Underlying Case

In 2022, Brock sued Flowers in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, wherein he alleged that Flowers underpaid him and other distributors in violation of state and federal laws. Flowers, citing the FAA, moved the court to stay or dismiss the case and require the parties to complete arbitration pursuant to the distribution agreement. The district court judge denied Flowers’ motion. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed and held that, while the FAA requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements in many circumstances, §1 provides an exception: “‘nothing’ in the statute shall be used to compel arbitration in disputes involving ‘contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in . . . interstate commerce.’” While the Tenth Circuit acknowledged that Brock did not cross state lines or interact with vehicle that did, it concluded that Brock’s intrastate route was an integral part of the ultimate interstate journey from out-of-state bakeries to their intended destinations at retail stores.

The SCOTUS Decision

The U. S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the question of whether someone can qualify as a worker engaged in interstate commerce under §1 (and therefore be exempt from the FAA’s arbitration requirement) if he never crosses state lines and never interacts with vehicles that do. The Court answered loud and clear: Yes. SCOTUS cited and relied upon previous decisions, including Southwest Airlines Company v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022) (holding that an airline worker who loaded and unloaded cargo was a “transportation worker” engaged in interstate commerce - and thus fit within §1’s exemption - even though she did not fly or otherwise cross state lines because she played a necessary role in the free flow of goods across borders) and Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024) (holding that a worker can fall under §1 whether he is employed in the “transportation industry” or some other, so long as his work “plays a direct and necessary role in the free flow of goods across borders.”). Importantly, the Court rejected Flowers’ “cross-or-tag” theory – i.e. that to be engaged in interstate commerce under §1, a worker must either cross state lines or become involved in “a game of tag” with vehicles that do. The statutory text contained in §1, as the Court explained, cannot support such a bright-line rule. Rather, the Court held that at least sometimes, a worker who transports goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey can qualify for §1’s exemption without satisfying either of those criteria. Thus, in affirming the Tenth Circuit’s holding that Brock was engaged in interstate commerce and not subject to the arbitration requirement under the FAA, the Court reasoned that individuals, such as Brock, can be direct, necessary, and active participants in moving goods from one state to another without crossing state lines or interacting with vehicles that do when their intrastate activities are part of a continuous interstate journey.

Impact on Employers

For interstate commerce employers and their delivery drivers, the Flowers holding is significant. SCOTUS has expanded the FAA’s transportation worker exemption to drivers making intrastate deliveries as part of a broader interstate transportation operation. The ruling provides a warning to interstate commerce employers to review their arbitration agreements, as well as analyze their workers’ roles in the broader flow of interstate commerce, specifically those with “last-mile” intrastate responsibilities. Of note however, the Court declined to address some key elements which were not included in Flowers’ petition for certiorari, but which may result in future litigation. Specifically, whether workers who take title of the good before final delivery are also exempt, and whether contracts between business entities qualify as employment contracts.

If you have any questions, please contact one of our Trucking Liability Practice Group or Employment Practices/Civil Rights Defense lawyers.