← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries

No. 23-51 SCOTUS · Decided Decided SCOTUS
Argued: Feb 20, 2024 Decided: Apr 12, 2024


The Facts

Neal Bissonnette distributed baked goods for LePage Bakeries in Connecticut. He and a colleague sued under state and federal wage laws. LePage moved to compel arbitration. Bissonnette argued the FAA's exemption for contracts of seamen, railroad employees, or other workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce applied to him. The question was whether the exemption extends beyond transportation industry employees.

The Application

History

Bissonnette qualified for the FAA transportation worker exemption because he performed the work of transporting baked goods across state lines, even though his employer was a bakery rather than a transportation company. The Court's work-focused approach meant that his actual job duties, physically moving goods in interstate commerce, satisfied the exemption's scope, not the industry classification of his employer. As a result, he could invoke the exemption to block arbitration of his employment claims despite the arbitration agreement.

The Conclusion

**Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries broadened the class of workers who can invoke the FAA's transportation worker exemption, making clear that the exemption turns on the nature of the work performed rather than the industry of the employer.** Delivery drivers, logistics workers, and others engaged in interstate movement of goods may now more readily avoid arbitration clauses in their employment contracts.

CourtSupreme Court of the United States
FiledJul 20, 2023
CL Statusactive
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert Granted -
Statusactive
Filed (CL)Jul 20, 2023
View on CourtListener →
SCOTUS TMR-3096a34a May 14, 2026

Case Analysis

Overview

A bread delivery driver sought to invoke the Federal Arbitration Act exemption for transportation workers in interstate commerce to avoid arbitration of his employment claims. The Supreme Court held 9-0 that the FAA transportation worker exemption is not limited to workers in the transportation industry, but applies to any worker actually engaged in interstate transportation of goods.

Facts

Neal Bissonnette distributed baked goods for LePage Bakeries in Connecticut. He and a colleague sued under state and federal wage laws. LePage moved to compel arbitration. Bissonnette argued the FAA's exemption for contracts of seamen, railroad employees, or other workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce applied to him. The question was whether the exemption extends beyond transportation industry employees.

Issue

Whether the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption for contracts of employment of transportation workers is limited to workers employed in the transportation industry, or whether it applies to all workers who are actually engaged in the work of transporting goods in interstate commerce regardless of industry.

Rule

The FAA exempts from its coverage contracts of employment of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. This exemption is defined by the work the employee actually performs rather than by the industry of the employer. A worker who physically moves goods across state lines as a central job function qualifies for the exemption even if employed by a company not primarily in the transportation industry.

Analysis

Bissonnette qualified for the FAA transportation worker exemption because he performed the work of transporting baked goods across state lines, even though his employer was a bakery rather than a transportation company. The Court's work-focused approach meant that his actual job duties, physically moving goods in interstate commerce, satisfied the exemption's scope, not the industry classification of his employer. As a result, he could invoke the exemption to block arbitration of his employment claims despite the arbitration agreement.

Conclusion

**Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries broadened the class of workers who can invoke the FAA's transportation worker exemption, making clear that the exemption turns on the nature of the work performed rather than the industry of the employer.** Delivery drivers, logistics workers, and others engaged in interstate movement of goods may now more readily avoid arbitration clauses in their employment contracts.

Notes

OT2023. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support