Porteous v. Flowers Foods, Inc.
6:23-cv-01840
| D. Or. | Feb 12, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Clint Porteous, operating through his company CPORT Distributing, Inc., had a distribution agreement with Flowers Baking Co. of Portland, LLC (FBC Portland), a subsidiary of Flowers Foods.
- CPORT's agreement included an arbitration clause and a personal guaranty binding Porteous personally to performance obligations and arbitration.
- Porteous personally delivered goods within Oregon, but the goods originated out-of-state, creating an interstate commerce element.
- Flowers classified DSD (direct store delivery) drivers like Porteous as independent contractors, not employees, and controlled many aspects of the business relationship.
- Plaintiff brought a putative class and collective action claim alleging misclassification and wage violations; Flowers moved to compel individual arbitration and to strike collective claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FAA §1 Transportation Worker Exemption | Plaintiff qualifies as exempt under FAA §1 due to last-mile, interstate commerce role | Plaintiff is purely intrastate and/or a business owner, not personally a transportation worker | Plaintiff is exempt under FAA §1 because he is a last-mile delivery worker integral to interstate commerce |
| "Contract of Employment" requirement | Agreement is a contract of employment covered by §1, including personal guaranty | Agreement is between business entities, not a contract of employment as required | Distribution arrangement qualifies as a contract of employment for purposes of FAA §1 |
| Application of Oregon Law | Arbitration cannot be compelled under Oregon law due to agreement's choice-of-law clause | Arbitration can proceed under Oregon law since Oregon lacks FAA transportation worker exception | Oregon law does not compel arbitration; FAA governs and precludes Oregon law where inconsistent |
| Enforceability of Class/Collective Waiver | Class/collective waiver falls with unenforceable arbitration agreement | Waiver survives even if arbitration is unenforceable due to severability | Class/collective waiver survives; plaintiff cannot proceed on class/collective basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (arbitration agreements under FAA are treated like other contracts)
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (doubts regarding arbitrability resolved in favor of arbitration)
- Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716 (not a high standard to demonstrate arbitrability)
- Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., 971 F.3d 904 (last-mile delivery drivers are transportation workers under FAA §1 even if intrastate)
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U.S. 105 (contract of employment under FAA §1 includes independent contractors)
- Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (hands-on cargo workers engaged in interstate commerce exempt from FAA)
- Carmona Mendoza v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 73 F.4th 1135 (last-leg delivery drivers in unbroken stream of commerce are transportation workers under FAA §1)
- Fli-Lo Falcon, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 97 F.4th 1190 (business entities as such are not transportation workers for FAA §1; distinction given significant treatment here)