In a recent move that signals a shift away from enforcing employment-related arbitration agreements, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion regarding the case of Miller v. Amazon.com (Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-BJR). The court affirmed the district court’s order which denied a motion lodged by Amazon to compel arbitration.
The case was brought forward by Amazon Flex delivery drivers who undertook final stretch deliveries of goods shipped from other states or countries to consumers, as well as tip-worthy deliveries of food. The full details of the case are available on JD Supra.
The breadth of this ruling hints to an adjustment in how the Federal Arbitration Act exemptions are construed. Where earlier rulings had limited such exemptions to ‘workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce’, a more extended interpretation of the same seems to be in the horizon. This will potentially affect how such workers, including delivery drivers among others, are perceived in relation to arbitration agreements.
Though it’s early to predict the full implications of this ruling, the shift appears to be significant for employers across various legal jurisdictions. Legal teams are recommended to keep a close eye on upcoming rulings or any legislative changes related to this space.
The verdict represents a trend of the Ninth Circuit to broadly construe exemptions in the context of employment-related arbitration agreements. In the past years, several judgements have suggested a pullback from commonplace enforcement of such agreements.
As the legal landscape evolves in relation to arbitration agreements, employers are advised to revise their legal strategies accordingly. Our prediction is this shift will have reverberating effects in the legal landscape and thus, we recommend employers continuously review and update their arbitration agreements to be in line with the changing legal dynamics.