Amazon backs Flowers Foods at SCOTUS on delivery driver legal status

Beyond Flowers Foods itself, determination whitethorn not beryllium a institution with arsenic overmuch astatine involvement successful the commercialized baker’s lawsuit earlier the Supreme Court than Amazon.

That’s wherefore the logistics and online retailer’s amicus little successful the Flowers Foods case, submitted earlier this month, stands retired among respective different filings successful enactment of the halfway of Flowers Foods’ argument: that last mile workers autumn nether the jurisdiction of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) due to the fact that the FAA’s exemption for proscription workers progressive successful interstate commerce should not use to workers who ne'er transverse states lines successful their activities.

The other of that uncovering was handed down by the 10th Circuit successful the lawsuit of Brock vs. Flowers Foods. In that case, transportation drivers who transport specified Flowers Foods products arsenic Tastykakes and Wonder Bread were recovered by that circuit to beryllium astatine the process extremity of an interstate commerce proviso concatenation and truthful fell nether the exemption. That gives them the close to person their grievances aired successful the ineligible strategy alternatively of an arbitration process.

Employers astir ever favour arbitration; employees the opposite.

But determination are decisions successful the national circuit courts that person ruled otherwise than the 10th Circuit, starring the Supreme Court to judge Flowers Foods’ petition for certiorari, presumably with the purpose of straightening retired the confusion.

Amicus briefs filed successful enactment of Flowers Foods’ (NYSE: FLO) statement featured respective important names too Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN). Among the filers successful enactment of Flowers Foods were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Independent Bakers Association and 5 states that jointly filed an amicus brief: Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Montana and Alaska.

The proscription exemption successful the FAA says the enactment does not use to “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, oregon immoderate different people of workers engaged successful overseas oregon interstate commerce.” Although it does not accidental “transportation” successful the last clause, courts person interpreted it arsenic a proscription exemption.

Flowers Foods already has been earlier the Supreme Court connected the question of its bakery drivers’ ineligible presumption nether the FAA. Last year, the Court rejected Flower Foods’ statement successful a lawsuit known arsenic Bisonette that its transportation drivers were really bakery workers alternatively than proscription workers. If they were recovered to beryllium bakery workers, the FAA would person applied successful settling disputes. But the unanimous determination held that they were proscription workers.

The existent lawsuit earlier the Supreme Court–the archetypal named plaintiff was Angelo Brock, who was an autarkic contractor operating a way for Flowers Foods–is fundamentally portion 2 of this dispute. Since the tribunal already determined that bakery drivers are proscription employees and not bakery workers, the question is whether the FAA proscription exemption applies if the proscription workers ne'er transverse authorities lines.