Aircraft Service International, Inc., et al. v. Danny Lopez

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not apply to “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 1. In Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022), this Court held that airline ramp supervisors who frequently load and unload cargo are exempt “transportation workers” because they “directly” transported interstate goods by “physically” moving cargo. Subsequent courts have applied Saxon by following this clear, practical language. E.g., Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Parks St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024) (Saxon focuses on the work performed, not the employer’s industry); Fraga v. Premium Retail Servs., Inc., 61 F.4th 228 (1st Cir. 2023); Ortiz v. Randstad Inhouse Servs., LLC, 95 F.4th 1152 (9th Cir. 2024) (workers who moved goods only small distances are exempt because they physically move the goods), cert. denied (U.S. Oct. 7, 2024) (23-1296). This case departs from Saxon and violates Bissonnette’s instruction to avoid “mini trials” caused by failing to give 9 U.S.C. § 1 the required narrow construction. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 123 (2001). The Ninth Circuit found that workers who do not have direct involvement with nor physically move goods are transportation workers if they play some “vital component” in the process of transportation. The question presented is: Whether workers who fuel airplanes, but who never directly or physically move interstate goods, are engaged in the interstate transportation of goods and exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.