993 F.3d 492
7th Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiff Latrice Saxon is a ramp supervisor for Southwest at Chicago Midway who supervises and often fills in for ramp agents who load and unload passenger baggage and commercial cargo.
- Supervisors are excluded from the collective-bargaining agreement and signed an annual arbitration agreement in their employment contract.
- Saxon sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging unpaid overtime; Southwest moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
- Saxon argued § 1 of the FAA exempts her employment contract because she is a member of a “class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” (i.e., a transportation worker).
- The district court granted Southwest’s motion, holding § 1 exempts only workers personally crossing state lines or actually transporting goods, not those who merely load/unload.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding airplane cargo loaders (including ramp supervisors who load/unload) are transportation workers exempt from the FAA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Saxon’s employment contract is exempt under 9 U.S.C. § 1 | Saxon: ramp supervisors are part of a class (airplane cargo loaders) engaged in interstate/foreign commerce because they load/unload goods for interstate flights | Southwest: exemption applies only to workers who personally move goods across state lines or manage those who do | Held: Saxon is a member of a class engaged in commerce; exemption applies |
| Does loading/unloading constitute "engaged in commerce" under the original 1925 meaning | Saxon: loading/unloading was historically treated as part of interstate transportation (citing early Supreme Court maritime/rail cases) | Southwest: "engaged in commerce" means actual transportation across borders, not handling at endpoints | Held: loading/unloading is part of actual transportation and therefore constitutes being engaged in commerce |
| Should the class inquiry focus on employer or occupation | Saxon: class should be defined by workers’ functions (occupation) not merely employer | Southwest: working for an airline should not automatically make employees exempt; exemption tied to other dispute-resolution schemes | Held: inquiry is occupational—whether the class of workers is engaged in commerce—not employer-based; purpose arguments cannot override statute text |
| Are cargo loaders analogous to the enumerated categories (seamen, railroad employees) | Saxon: cargo loaders perform work analogous to seamen and railroad employees and fit ejusdem generis | Southwest: seamen is a term of art distinct from longshoremen; residual clause should be narrow | Held: cargo loaders are sufficiently analogous to the enumerated categories and fit within the residual "transportation workers" exemption |
Key Cases Cited
- Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (superseding interpretation limiting § 1 to transportation workers)
- Wallace v. Grubhub Holdings, Inc., 970 F.3d 798 (7th Cir.) (framework for applying § 1 and ejusdem generis analysis)
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532 (Supreme Court) (textualist original-meaning approach to § 1 limits)
- Balt. & Ohio Sw. R.R. v. Burtch, 263 U.S. 540 (holding loading/unloading is closely related to interstate transportation)
- Puget Sound Stevedoring Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 302 U.S. 90 (recognizing loading/unloading as interstate/foreign commerce)
- N. Coal & Dock Co. v. Strand, 278 U.S. 142 (stevedore work has direct relation to commerce and navigation)
- Department of Revenue v. Ass'n of Wash. Stevedoring Cos., 435 U.S. 734 (overruled per se tax rule but reaffirmed stevedoring as commerce)
- Tenney Eng'g, Inc. v. United Elec. Radio & Mach. Workers, Local 437, 207 F.2d 450 (3d Cir.) (using FELA doctrine to interpret § 1 classes)