By: Caroline M. Colangelo
On May 28, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Angelo Brock that impacts employers’ ability to enforce arbitration agreements with so called “last-mile” drivers. The term “last-mile” drivers refers to delivery drivers who transport and deliver a product in the final leg of the supply chain, for example, a driver engaged to deliver products from a local distribution hub or warehouse directly to a customer’s doorstep. The Court held that last-mile drivers who make local deliveries of goods that have previously moved across state lines can fall under the “transportation worker exemption” of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), prohibiting them from being compelled to arbitrate their claims under the FAA despite the fact that their actual deliveries all occurred within the same state.
The case was brought by Angelo Brock, a delivery driver for Flowers Foods in Colorado who distributed baked goods from a warehouse to local retailers. Although the goods Brock delivered had previously crossed state lines before reaching the warehouse, his deliveries occurred entirely within Colorado. After Brock brought a putative class and collective action against Flowers Foods, alleging that the company had misclassified him and other drivers as independent contractors, Flowers Foods moved to compel arbitration based on a mandatory arbitration agreement Brock had signed agreeing to resolve all disputes via arbitration under the FAA. In response, Brock argued that he was exempt from arbitration because he belonged to a class of workers engaged in interstate commerce—an argument the district court and the Tenth Circuit accepted. Flowers Foods then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The central issue of the case is whether Section 1 of the FAA (9 U.S.C. § 1), which exempts certain “transportation workers” engaged in interstate or foreign commerce from mandatory arbitration, applied to last-mile delivery drivers. The exemption excludes from FAA coverage “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” At issue was the scope of workers covered by the exemption’s “any other class of workers” clause. Flowers Foods argued that workers who deliver local goods that have previously crossed state lines, but who do not transport the goods across borders themselves did not qualify as transportation workers under the exemption. Conversely, Mr. Brock argued that he qualified as a transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce because his interstate route formed an essential component of the interstate journey.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with Brock, holding that a worker who transports goods during an interstate leg of a broader interstate journey may qualify under Section 1’s transportation worker exemption. The Court’s ruling clarifies that the exemption can extend to drivers who make local deliveries as part of an interstate supply chain, even if they do not themselves cross state lines. In the Court’s view, interstate commerce encompasses both workers who carry goods across state borders and those who transport those goods within a single state as part of the same continuous movement. Accordingly, such workers may fall within the exemption and therefore may not be compelled to arbitrate their claims under the FAA. The Court emphasized, however, that its opinion was limited insofar as it rejected a bright line rule excluding workers who never cross state lines or interact directly with vehicles that do from the definition of transportation workers under the exemption, but it did not decide whether workers whose connection to interstate commerce is more attenuated fall outside the exemption’s scope.
The case builds on recent caselaw from the Supreme Court, which has taken an increasingly expansive view of the exemption set forth in Section 1 of the FAA Indeed, in the last seven years, the Court had ruled in favor of the workers seeking to expand coverage under the transportation worker exemption in four separate cases.
The decision potentially has significant ramifications for companies seeking to enforce employment arbitration agreements with last-mile drivers, particularly when facing a class or collective action suit. Companies who employ or contract with delivery drivers can no longer rely on intrastate routes alone for purposes of avoiding application of the FAA transportation worker exemption and may be required to litigate whether deliveries are part of a continuous intrastate movement for purposes of enforcing an arbitration agreement. Companies who contract with last-mile delivery drivers and who wish to utilize and enforce arbitration agreements should review those agreements and consider modifications that incorporate and reference state law arbitration provisions, such as the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”). Though “last-mile” drivers may be exempt from the FAA, arbitration agreements with these employees may still be enforceable under the CAA. Employers should consult with legal counsel to evaluate any necessary modifications to their current arbitration agreements.
Legal Disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog is intended to constitute legal advice and your interactions with this blog do not result in the formation of an attorney-client relationship. All matters are different and, as such, nothing in this blog is intended to guarantee, warrant, or predict a specific outcome.