The U.S. Supreme Court supported a delivery truck driver’s attempt to extend the list of interstate commerce employees who are exempt from the requirement of mandatory arbitration of legal disputes beyond those working for transportation companies on Friday.

In a 9-0 decision, the justices overturned a lower court’s decision to dismiss Neal Bissonette’s proposed class action lawsuit. Bissonette works as a delivery driver for LePage Bakeries on Park Street, a division of Wonder Bread manufacturer Flowers Foods.

According to Bissonette, Flowers Foods treats its drivers more like independent contractors than like employees, depriving them of their wages.

“Many companies require workers to sign arbitration agreements and claim individual arbitration is quicker and more efficient than resolving disputes in court. Critics of the practice have said it prevents companies from being held accountable for legal violations that affect large numbers of workers,” Reuters reported.

Exemptions from this rule apply to employment contracts “of seamen, railroad employees, and any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which dates back to 1925, mandates that arbitration agreements be enforced based on their terms.

“The Supreme Court, in a 2001 ruling, said the exemption applied only to transportation workers. Since then, appeals courts have split over whether that means any worker who transports goods or only those employed by companies that provide transportation services,” the outlet added.

Because LePage’s clients were buying bread and not transportation services, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York determined in 2022 that the exemption did not apply to LePage’s case.

Advertisement

Bissonette accused LePage of misclassifying drivers as independent contractors to deny them minimum wage, overtime compensation, and other legal protections while they delivered baked goods to retailers.

The U.S. Supreme Court made headlines last week when it ruled against a convicted drug dealer, which had implications for thousands of federal prisoners seeking shorter sentences.

In an uncommon ideological split of 6-3, the court ruled that Mark Pulsifer, who admitted guilt to distributing methamphetamines in 2020, could not avail himself of a provision within the First Step Act, a substantial sentencing reform law.

The question at hand revolved around whether Pulsifer should face a mandatory 15-year sentence or be eligible for a “safety valve” provision. The provision outlines conditions under which a lesser sentence could be applied to nonviolent, low-level drug offenders.

The court concluded that Pulsifer did not meet the requirements in a ruling by liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Five of the court’s six conservative justices supported her in the majority.

The provision in question delineates a set of criteria for imposing sentences below the mandatory minimums. The court determined that Pulsifer must satisfy all the stipulations, dismissing his contention that meeting some criteria would suffice for relief. The decision hinged, in part, on the court’s interpretation of the term “and,” said the outlet.

Congress “did not extend safety-valve relief to all defendants, but only to some,” Kagan wrote. The two remaining liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch in dissent.

Gorsuch claimed that the high court substantially limited the objective of the First Step Act.

“Adopting the government’s preferred interpretation guarantees that thousands more people in the federal justice system will be denied a chance — just a chance — at an individualized sentence. For them, the First Step Act offers no hope.”

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court dealt another blow to Gov. Greg Abbott’s efforts to secure his state’s border with Mexico after years of dealing with migrant surges thanks to President Joe Biden’s lack of enforcement.

Justice Samuel Alito, who oversees the 5th Circuit district, further delayed Texas’ implementation of its immigrant deportation laws related to Senate Bill 4, Newsweek reported. The deadline is now extended until 5 p.m. on March 18th.

The new law was set to go into effect later this month and would allow for the arrest of people who are illegally in the state and country.

Earlier, “Alito issued the administrative hold, which will block the law from taking effect until March 13. That temporary pause will give the court additional time to review the case but does not necessarily signal which way the court is leaning,” CNN reported at the time.

The order came after several pro-mass immigration groups and the Biden administration filed an emergency application with the nation’s highest court after an appeals court gave Texas the green light to begin enforcing its law.

CNN added: “Senate Bill 4, signed into law by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in December, immediately raised concerns among immigration advocates about increased racial profiling as well as detentions and attempted deportations by state authorities in Texas, where Latinos represent 40% of the population. Last week, a federal judge in Austin, Texas, blocked the state government from implementing the law.”

“If allowed to proceed, SB 4 could open the door to each state passing its version of immigration laws,” Judge David Alan Ezra wrote in his ruling that the federal appeals court eventually overturned.

Advertisement