CLDA Members are encouraged to share news about their company. CLDA may share on social media, in newsletters or the Customized Logistics & Delivery Magazine.
Ready to share your news with CLDA or the industry media? Learn from these tips and tricks on how to get noticed.
By Doug Grawe, General Counsel, Openforce
Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving transportation workers have generated significant discussion across the logistics industry. While much of the attention has focused on Montgomery v C.H. Robinson, another case deserves close attention from companies that utilize independent contractors: Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock.
For companies in last-mile delivery, courier services, trucking, appliance delivery, medical delivery, and other transportation-related sectors, the decision is an important reminder that arbitration clauses and the contracting process should be evaluated with both state and federal law in mind.
The case centered on Brock, a driver who delivered products for Flowers Foods under an independent contractor arrangement. Brock alleged that he had been misclassified as an independent contractor and sought overtime pay and reimbursement for certain wage deductions.
Flowers Foods wanted to enforce the arbitration provision in Brock’s agreement. The key question before the Supreme Court was whether the arbitration clause was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Federal law generally favors arbitration. Arbitration can provide a more efficient, cost-effective, and predictable way to resolve disputes outside of traditional court litigation. In transportation, it can also allow parties to select arbitrators with industry experience, which may be especially useful when disputes involve nuanced industry regulations and operational details.
However, the Federal Arbitration Act does not cover transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. In Flowers Foods, there was no real dispute that Brock was a transportation worker – he was a delivery driver. The question was whether he was engaged in interstate commerce even though his own deliveries occurred entirely within one state.
The Supreme Court focused not on whether the driver crossed state lines, but on the movement of the goods the driver delivered. In this case, the goods originated outside of the state and were delivered to the distribution center before Brock picked them up and delivered them to retail customers.
If goods originate out of state and continue through a supply chain before reaching their final destination, a worker completing the final in-state delivery may still be considered part of interstate commerce. (The reverse is true as well – a worker completing the first in-state delivery may still be operating in interstate commerce if the goods later are delivered by other providers out of state.)
Because the goods Brock delivered had moved through interstate channels, the Court ruled he was a transportation worker in interstate commerce and therefore the federal arbitration exception applied, meaning Flower Foods’ arbitration provision could not be enforced against Brock under the Federal Arbitration Act.
For transportation companies, this does not mean arbitration clauses are invalid or should be abandoned because even though federal law may not enforce the arbitration clause, state law still may.
The decision is a good reminder to review independent contractor agreements with arbitration provisions, onboarding workflows, contracting processes with a lawyer that knows your operation well. Companies should evaluate whether arbitration clauses are fair, clearly written, and presented in a way that gives independent contractors a meaningful opportunity to review and understand them.
In some jurisdictions, additional requirements may apply, including opt-out opportunities or separate acknowledgments. That makes both the language of the agreement and the process used to present it important.
Ultimately, Flowers Foods reinforces that courts are looking at both contract language and operational reality. For companies relying on independent contractors in transportation, risk management should not be limited to having agreements in place. Those agreements must align with the way the business actually operates.
