107 F.4th 1096
9th Cir.2024Background
- Danny Lopez, a fuel technician at LAX employed by Menzies Aviation, alleged violations of California wage and hour laws.
- Lopez filed a class action in California Superior Court; Menzies removed to federal court and sought to compel arbitration based on an employment arbitration agreement.
- Lopez argued he was exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) arbitration requirement as a transportation worker engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.
- Lopez’s responsibilities included fueling planes involved in interstate and international flights.
- The district court denied Menzies’s motion to compel arbitration, finding Lopez exempt under the FAA.
- Menzies appealed, challenging the interpretation of the FAA’s transportation worker exemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lopez is covered by the FAA’s transportation worker exemption | Lopez’s work fueling planes was directly connected to interstate and foreign commerce, qualifying for the exemption | Lopez did not handle goods nor have direct contact with them; thus, not a transportation worker under the exemption | Lopez qualifies as a transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce and is exempt from FAA arbitration |
| Does exemption require hands-on contact with goods? | Exemption includes workers whose work is closely related to interstate commerce, not just those with direct contact with goods | Only workers with direct, hands-on involvement with shipped goods qualify for exemption | No such requirement; direct and necessary role suffices under precedent |
| Is reliance on non-FAA statutes (FELA, FLSA) appropriate in interpreting the exemption? | Historical and judicial precedent supports such reliance | Such reliance is improper and overbroadens the exemption | Reliance on analogous statutes is appropriate and supported by precedent |
| Proper district court application of Supreme Court and circuit precedent | District court properly applied Supreme Court and 9th Circuit authority | District court misapplied controlling precedent, especially Saxon | District court faithfully applied appellate and Supreme Court guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022) (clarifies the FAA’s transportation worker exemption applies to those who play a direct and necessary role in the transport of goods)
- Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001) (interprets the scope of the FAA’s transportation worker exemption)
- Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., 971 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2020) (holds that last-mile delivery drivers are exempt from FAA arbitration requirements)
- Wirtz v. B. B. Saxon Co., 365 F.2d 457 (5th Cir. 1966) (fuel delivery to airplanes is within statutory commerce)
- Shanks v. Delaware, Lackawanna, & W. Railroad Co., 239 U.S. 556 (1916) (work preparatory or closely related to interstate transportation is considered part of interstate commerce)
- North Carolina R.R. Co. v. Zachary, 232 U.S. 248 (1914) (maintenance work on trains involved in interstate commerce can qualify as work in interstate commerce)
- Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024) (worker need not be employed by a transportation company to be exempt under the FAA, emphasis on job duties)