By Daniel Wiessner
April 22 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to decide whether delivery drivers for Amazon.com
, Domino's Pizza , and a Flowers Foods subsidiary qualify for an exemption from mandatory arbitration of employment claims that the justices recently held applies to a broad range of industries.
The court denied the companies' separate petitions for review of lower court rulings that said the drivers were engaged in interstate commerce even when they made local deliveries and were covered by an exemption in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), allowing them to pursue class action wage claims in court rather than individual arbitration.
The FAA generally requires the enforcement of otherwise valid arbitration agreements, which many workers sign, but exempts transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce.
The companies and lawyers for the plaintiffs in each case did not respond to requests for comment.
The Supreme Court in a 9-0 ruling earlier this month in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries held that the FAA exemption can apply to any transport workers and is not limited to those who work in the transportation industry, settling a split among federal appeals courts.
The three cases the court turned down on Monday all questioned whether workers, including Amazon "last mile" drivers and Domino's drivers who deliver ingredients and supplies to franchisees, were sufficiently involved in interstate commerce to be covered by the exemption.
The justices have denied at least two other petitions by Amazon for review of similar rulings in separate cases.
The Supreme Court also addressed the scope of the exemption in the 2022 case Saxon v. Southwest Airlines, ruling that supervisors of airline baggage handlers were engaged in interstate commerce because they handled luggage that was moving across state lines.
In the case involving Domino's, the Supreme Court in 2022 told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its ruling against the company in light of the Southwest decision.
The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit last year said the high court ruling supported its earlier conclusion that Domino's drivers are exempt from arbitration.
The cases are Amazon.com Inc v. Miller, Domino's Pizza LLC v. Carmona, and CK Sales Co LLC v. Canales, U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 23-424, 23-427, and 23-460.
For Amazon: Michael Kenneally of Morgan Lewis & Bockius
For Miller: Hillary Schwab of Fair Work
For Domino's: Courtney Saleski of DLA Piper
For Carmona: Aashish Desai of Desai Law Firm
For CK Sales: Traci Lovitt of Jones Day
For Canales: Benjamin Rudolf of Murphy & Rudolf
Read more:
Domino's unlikely to push drivers' wage claims into arbitration, appeals court says
Amazon again loses bid for SCOTUS review on FAA exemption
US Supreme Court lets broad array of transport workers sidestep arbitration
U.S. Supreme Court rules Southwest Airlines cannot force wage suit into arbitration
'Last mile' Amazon drivers exempt from arbitrating wage claims- 9th Circuit
U.S. Supreme Court gives boost to Domino's in arbitration case
(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York; editing by Nate Raymond)
((daniel.wiessner@thomsonreuters.com))
Comments