Traffic Tech, Inc., et al. v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.

Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution demands that “Full Faith and Credit” be given by each State “to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” While a State is not required “to substitute for its own statute . . . the statute of another State,” a State may not apply “a special rule that discriminates against its sister States.” Franchise Tax Bd. Of Cal. v. Hyatt, 578 U.S. 171, 179 (2016). In addition, a state “may not abrogate the rights of parties beyond its borders having no relation to anything done or to be done within them.” Home Ins. Co. v. Dick, 281 U.S. 397, 410 (1930). California and Minnesota have both enacted Statutes guarantying employees who live and work in the State the exclusive protections of select employment laws of their home State. These “Anti-Waiver Statutes” prohibit out-of-state employers from utilizing contractual choice-of-law provisions to circumvent certain employment rights deemed fundamental within the State. In conducting a choice-of-law analysis below, the Eighth Circuit disregarded entirely California’s Anti-Waiver Statute, strictly enforced a contractual choice-of-law provision that is illegal under California law, and thereby deprived California citizens of their California employment rights. The Eighth Circuit’s approach is inconsistent with the precedent of this Court and the Constitution. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Due Process Clause require a State, which has its own Anti-Waiver Statute, to uphold a sister State’s Anti-Waiver Statute.