In an ongoing legal battle taking place within the U.S Supreme Court, the case of Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. revolves around the contested field of mandatory arbitration imposed by employers on their employees. This case, specifically, concerns commercial truck drivers who work for Flowers Foods, the producers of the iconic Wonder Bread.
The issue at hand arises from a set of legal agreements that these drivers had to consent to which requires any arising disputes to be settled via arbitration, rather than court litigation. The main bone of contention, however, relates back to a specific exemption within the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) for transportation workers. This exemption states that “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” are exempt from mandatory arbitration.
The truck drivers, serving as an integral part of an interstate distribution network for Flowers Foods, argue that this exemption should extend to their employment as well. Their argument became the subject of dispute when Neil Bissonnette, amongst others, launched a class-action lawsuit against Flowers and LePage Bakeries, which was met with a counter-argument that the FAA imposed compulsory arbitration.
The lower courts stood in favor of Flowers and LePage Bakeries, ruling that the FAA does apply to the truck drivers since they are not directly within the transportation industry. However, the drivers argue that they are part of a “class of workers engaged in commerce” just like seamen and railroad personnel, and thus should not be subject to mandatory arbitration on the grounds of their employer’s characteristics.
The main argument from the employers’ side bases itself historically, pointing towards separate regulations that existed for seamen and railway employees that do not apply to commercial truck drivers. The employers also rely on the rule of eiusdem generis, a legal principle asserting that general terms following specific ones should be construed within the class of the latter.
The truck drivers, on the other hand, highlight the discrepancies and incongruities that could arise from the employers’ interpretation in today’s era of multinational retail entities like Amazon and Walmart that operate vast delivery networks.
The justices have considerable experience with the FAA, and an outcome is expected to come to light shortly after the impending trial. It remains a pivotal case to watch, potentially setting an impactful precedent for cases involving mandatory arbitration and employment contracts within the interstate commerce context. [Link]