Brock v. Flowers Foods, 121 F.4th 753

Angelo Brock worked as an independent distributor for Flowers Baking Co. of Denver, delivering baked goods from out-of-state bakeries to Colorado retail stores.
Brock sued Flowers in a putative class action, alleging misclassification under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Colorado law.
Flowers sought to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement in its distributor contract, citing the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and, in the alternative, Colorado law.
The district court denied Flowers' motion, holding Brock was exempt from arbitration under § 1 of the FAA (the transportation worker exemption), and that Colorado law could not compel arbitration due to the agreement’s terms.
Flowers appealed the decision, specifically the denial of compelled arbitration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of FAA § 1 Exemption	Brock is a transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce, exempt from FAA arbitration.	Flowers: Brock's deliveries are local, not interstate; not a transportation worker under FAA.	Exemption applies; Brock's intrastate deliveries are the last leg of a continuous interstate journey.
Nature of Distributor Agreement as Employment	(Not directly argued by Brock on appeal)	Flowers: Distributor Agreement is not a contract of employment, so FAA § 1 exemption does not apply.	Argument not considered on appeal as it was not raised below and is not beyond reasonable doubt.
Enforceability of Arbitration under Colorado Law	Colorado law inconsistent with FAA; agreement’s language does not allow state law arbitration if FAA does not apply.	State law can fill the gap left by the FAA exemption to compel arbitration anyway.	No jurisdiction over state law basis on interlocutory appeal; agreement bars such enforcement.
Jurisdiction over State Law Claims on Appeal	Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review state law bases for compelling arbitration on interlocutory review.	Flowers argued for pendent jurisdiction to consider state law.	Court declines to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction; limits review to FAA issues only.

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (U.S. 2001) (defining scope of FAA § 1 transportation worker exemption)
New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U.S. 105 (U.S. 2019) (holding the FAA § 1 exemption covers transportation workers regardless of independent contractor status)
Sw. Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (U.S. 2022) (clarifying the two-step analysis for the FAA § 1 transportation worker exemption)
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (establishing the FAA’s pro-arbitration policy)
United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1947) (distinguishing when intrastate activity is part of interstate commerce)
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1935) (goods come to rest when no longer in the stream of interstate commerce)