July 24, 2019

July 23, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 22, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Keep On Truckin'

In a blow to the transportation industry, last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the trucking company, New Prime Inc., cannot compel arbitration in a class action alleging it failed to pay independent contractor driver apprentices minimum wage.  In New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, the Court held that transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce, including those classified as independent contractors, are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”).  Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the Court’s 8-0 opinion (Justice Brett Kavanaugh was recused from the case). 

Section 1 of the FAA exempts from arbitration “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”  In New Prime, the Court addressed two questions: (1) whether a dispute over the applicability of the Section 1 exemption must be resolved by an arbitrator based on a valid delegation clause or by a court; and (2) whether the Section 1 exemption covers independent contractor agreements.  On the first question, the Court held that a court should decide whether the Section 1 exemption applies before sending a case to arbitration.  “The parties’ private agreement may be crystal clear and require arbitration of every question under the sun, but that does not necessarily mean the act authorizes a court to stay litigation and send the parties to an arbitral forum.”

In addressing the second question, the Court first assessed the meaning of the term “contracts of employment” in the FAA noting that, at the time the FAA was enacted in 1925, a “’contract of employment’ usually meant nothing more than an agreement to perform work.“  “As a result, most people then would have understood Section 1 to exclude not only agreements between employers and employees but also agreements that require independent contractors to perform work.”  The Court refused to explicitly draw the line between employees and independent contractors in the transportation sector for the purposes of the Section 1 exemption, instead ruling that, in 1925, a contract of employment did not necessarily imply the existence of an employer-employee or master-servant relationship.

So, what does the New Prime decision mean for transportation industry employers?  Given the industry’s common practice of hiring individuals as independent contractors rather than employees, New Prime could have broad implications.  However, it does not necessarily sound a death knell for arbitration provisions in all transportation industry independent contractor agreements, as these arbitration agreements may still be enforceable as a matter of state law.   In addition, since Section 1 of the FAA only applies to workers in foreign or interstate commerce, intrastate workers are not affected.  Regardless, transportation industry employers should review their independent contractor agreements to ensure that any arbitration provisions will hold up in light of New Prime.

© 2019 Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP


About this Author

Jeremy Mittman, Mitchell Silberberg Law Firm, Labor and Employment, Litigation Attorney, Los Angeles

Jeremy Mittman represents management in litigation of employment-related matters, including discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, as well as state and federal wage and hour claims. Jeremy regularly counsels clients on compliance with employment-related laws and on enforcing personnel policies and procedures. Jeremy has extensive experience representing employers in a variety of industries such as financial services, security services, and numerous entertainment and media companies. In addition, Jeremy works with clients on multi-country HR projects involving...

Samuel Richman Labor Employment Attorney

Legal Expertise

Samuel Richman has extensive experience in representing clients from public and private companies to high-net-worth individuals in all aspects of litigation for commercial, probate, business and entertainment matters. Samuel regularly advises clients on Title VII, ADA, ADEA, FLSA, FMLA and GINA compliance matters. In addition, he has successfully defended multiple clients against various discrimination cases.

Representative Matters

  • Drafted a successful motion for summary judgment on a federal class action FLSA lawsuit
  • Second-chaired the successful defense of a class action arbitration alleging unfair labor practices
  • Managed all discovery matters for numerous state and federal discrimination cases
  • Conducted and defended several depositions in employment discrimination matters
  • Drafted dispositive choice of law motion successfully arguing for California law to apply over Tennessee law
  • Drafted multiple employee handbooks

Other Career Experience

  • Associate, Dickinson Wright PLLC
310-312 - 3245