Skip to main content

Breaking: United States Supreme Court Holds Independent Contractors in Transportation Industry May NOT Be Forced Into Mandatory Arbitration


Back in October, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira.  The case, which came up on appeal from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, raised two primary questions for the Court to consider:  1) Whether a court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act's Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving "contracts of employment" of certain transportation workers applies before sending a case to arbitration (or if the matter should instead go straight to an arbitrator to decide the question of arbitrability), and 2) Whether the transportation worker, Dominic Oliveira ("Oliveira"), had a "contract of employment" that fell within Section 1's exception.

At October's oral arguments, I made note of the Justices giving counsel for New Prime, Inc. ("New Prime") a rather rough go of it, based upon the tenor of their questions.  On the other hand, the questions aimed at counsel for Oliveira seemed to suggest that the Court found his arguments more compelling.  I looked into my crystal ball and thought that a 6 - 3 or 7 - 2 ruling in favor of Oliveira was likely, based upon how oral arguments played out.  

Well, it turns out I was close.  On Tuesday, Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court:  An 8 - 0 ruling affirming judgment from the lower court in favor of Oliveira.  (Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not take part in the opinion.)  In the majority opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote that courts, not arbitrators, should decide whether an agreement falls under the FAA exception as courts are better positioned to determine whether the FAA covers the agreement in question before compelling arbitration. As for Oliveira and his independent contractor status, Justice Gorsuch addressed whether his work agreement with New Prime counted as a "contract of employment".  To answer the question, Justice Gorsuch noted it was imperative to look at when when the FAA was originally adopted, in 1925, to determine what "contract of employment" meant then.  As the opinion points out, "contract of employment" was generally understood to have a broad meaning, based in part upon caselaw and statutory text from that time.  Consequently, the Court found it was reasonable to hold that "contract of employment" would include independent contractors as well as employees.

Readers might be surprised to see the Supreme Court rule in such a large number against the enforceability of an arbitration agreement here.  We have previously seen the Supreme Court tend to be quite liberal if you will, in regard to the enforcement of arbitration agreements in the workplace.  Nevertheless, the Court's holding here that contracts of employees and independent contractors with interstate transportation companies are excluded from the FAA's mandatory arbitration provision is noteworthy.  This is a major victory for employees and a dissapointing outcome for employers.


For a copy of the Supreme Court's Opinion:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-340_o7kq.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more