Justia Transportation Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs Charles and Grant Adler, through their business entity CM Adler LLC, distributed tortillas and other food products of Defendant Gruma Corporation to grocery stores in central New Jersey under a "Store Door Distributor Agreement" (SDDA). When Defendant terminated the relationship, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging retaliatory termination due to their organizing efforts with other distributors. Plaintiffs claimed violations of state and federal labor laws, including failure to pay minimum wages and unlawful deductions, and argued that the SDDA was a franchise agreement subject to New Jersey's Franchise Practices Act, which forbids termination without cause.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the case, concluding that Texas law governed under the SDDA and the case should proceed to arbitration. The District Court did not address the applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) or Plaintiffs' exemption argument under 9 U.S.C. § 1. It found the parties had contracted for Texas law, under which the arbitration agreement was enforceable, and rejected Plaintiffs' bid to apply New Jersey law instead. The District Court also decided that Charles and Grant Adler, who did not sign the contract, were estopped from challenging its arbitration provision because they acted as parties to the contract when they performed the LLC’s work.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the FAA does not apply to the SDDA because Plaintiffs are transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. The Court of Appeals found that the District Court erred in its choice-of-law analysis by failing to consider the impact of New Jersey public policies on its arbitrability ruling. The Court of Appeals vacated the order compelling arbitration and remanded for the District Court to complete the choice-of-law analysis under the correct framework and to reevaluate whether the individual Plaintiffs, who did not sign the arbitration agreement, are bound by its terms. View "Adler v. Gruma Corporation" on Justia Law

Timothy Hoffstead, a canine handler for Metra, was suspended after testing positive for amphetamines and opioids during a random drug test. Hoffstead attributed the positive result to his prescribed medications for ADD, migraines, and a wrist injury. The medical review officer (MRO) attempted to contact Hoffstead for an explanation but was unsuccessful. Consequently, Hoffstead was suspended and later not considered for an open canine handler position. Despite providing proof of his prescriptions and having his test results revised to negative, Metra required him to complete a rehabilitation program. Hoffstead eventually returned to work but left Metra for other employment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of Metra. The court found that Hoffstead failed to demonstrate that Metra's actions were due to his disability. The court also ruled that it could not consider Hoffstead's claim regarding the exercise of seniority under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) due to the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which prohibits courts from interpreting CBAs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Hoffstead did not provide sufficient evidence to show that Metra's actions were motivated by his disability. The court noted that Hoffstead's failure to respond to the MRO and his decision to waive an investigation in favor of the rehabilitation program were the primary reasons for Metra's actions. The court also found that the RLA did not preclude adjudicating Hoffstead's claim regarding the seniority rules but concluded that Hoffstead failed to demonstrate a link between his disability and Metra's actions. View "Hoffstead v Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corp" on Justia Law

Ali Bahreman, a flight attendant for Allegiant Air, challenged the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Allegiant and the Transport Workers Union (Union). The CBA required employees to either pay union dues or agency fees to maintain seniority-based bidding privileges for work schedules. Bahreman chose not to pay any fees and subsequently lost his bidding privileges. He argued that this arrangement violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by coercing employees to join the Union, deviating from the employment-termination remedy, and breaching the Union's duty of fair representation.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in favor of Allegiant and the Union. The court found that the CBA did not violate the RLA's anti-coercion provision, as it did not induce employees to join the Union. The court also held that the RLA does not prohibit collective bargaining agreements with terms other than those explicitly permitted by the Act. Additionally, the court determined that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation, as it enforced the CBA equally among all members of the bargaining unit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the RLA does not prohibit a collective bargaining agreement that conditions seniority-based bidding privileges on the payment of union dues or agency fees. The court found that the CBA did not induce union membership, as it treated union members and nonmembers alike regarding payment requirements. The court also concluded that the CBA's terms were permissible under the RLA and that the Union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in enforcing the agreement. View "Bahreman v. Allegiant Air, LLC" on Justia Law

Angelo Brock, an independent distributor for Flowers Baking Co. of Denver, LLC, filed a class-action lawsuit alleging wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Colorado labor law. Brock claimed that Flowers misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors to avoid paying proper wages. Flowers moved to compel arbitration based on an Arbitration Agreement within the Distributor Agreement between Brock and Flowers. The district court denied the motion, leading to this appeal.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado found that Brock fell within the "transportation workers exemption" under § 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which exempts certain transportation workers from arbitration. The court concluded that Brock's class of workers, who deliver Flowers goods intrastate, are engaged in interstate commerce because they play a direct and necessary role in the flow of goods across state lines. The court also determined that the Arbitration Agreement did not allow for arbitration under Colorado law, as it was inconsistent with the FAA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit agreed that Brock's class of workers is engaged in interstate commerce, as their intrastate deliveries are part of a continuous interstate journey of goods. The court found that Flowers retains significant control over Brock's operations, indicating that the goods' delivery to retail stores is the final leg of an interstate route. The court declined to review Flowers's argument that the Distributor Agreement is not a contract of employment, as it was not raised in the lower court. Additionally, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of arbitration under Colorado law. View "Brock v. Flowers Foods" on Justia Law

Curtis Rookaird, represented by Paul Parker, was terminated by BNSF Railway Company after performing an air-brake test, which he argued was a protected activity under the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). Rookaird claimed his termination was retaliatory. Initially, a jury found in Rookaird’s favor, but the Ninth Circuit vacated the verdict and remanded the case to the district court to reconsider whether the air-brake test contributed to BNSF’s decision to terminate him. On remand, the district court conducted a bench trial and ruled in favor of BNSF, concluding that while the air-brake test contributed to the termination, it did so "very little."The district court found that BNSF had conceded the air-brake test contributed to Rookaird’s termination but ruled that BNSF was entitled to an affirmative defense by showing the test contributed minimally. The court also upheld BNSF’s evidentiary rulings, excluding certain testimony and admitting comparator evidence. Rookaird appealed, arguing the district court misapplied the FRSA and erred in its evidentiary rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings, finding no abuse of discretion. However, it vacated the district court’s judgment on the affirmative defense issue. The Ninth Circuit held that under the FRSA, an employer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated the employee absent the protected activity, not merely that the protected activity contributed "very little" to the decision. The case was remanded for the district court to determine if BNSF met this burden, given that the air-brake test could not contribute even in part to the termination decision. View "Parker v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, former employees of Alpine Site Services, Inc., filed a lawsuit alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay them the required overtime wages. Alpine contended that the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption applied, which would exempt them from paying overtime. The plaintiffs argued that they were not properly classified under the MCA exemption.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas reviewed the case and agreed with Alpine, finding that the plaintiffs were classified as "loaders" under the MCA exemption. The court found that the plaintiffs' job duties included loading vehicles, which directly affected the safety of operation of motor vehicles in interstate commerce. The district court dismissed the suit with prejudice, concluding that the plaintiffs fell under the MCA exemption and were not entitled to overtime pay.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not err in classifying the plaintiffs as "loaders" under the MCA exemption. The court noted that the plaintiffs' duties included loading vehicles, which required the exercise of judgment and discretion, and that this work directly affected the safety of operation of motor vehicles. The court also found that the plaintiffs regularly engaged in loading activities, which constituted a substantial part of their job responsibilities. The appellate court concluded that the MCA exemption applied to the plaintiffs in all workweeks, even those in which they performed only non-safety-affecting duties. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that the district court abused its discretion in denying their motion to amend the court's factual findings, as the plaintiffs failed to provide meaningful analysis or supporting authority for this argument. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "Kelley v. Alpine Site Services" on Justia Law

Scott Lupia, a locomotive engineer for New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. (NJT), was injured when the air conditioning (A/C) unit in his cab malfunctioned, causing the temperature to rise to 114 degrees Fahrenheit. Despite notifying his supervisors, Lupia was instructed to operate the train, leading to his collapse from heat exhaustion and subsequent permanent injuries. Lupia filed a lawsuit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging that NJT violated the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) by failing to maintain the locomotive's parts and appurtenances, including the A/C unit, in safe operating condition.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied NJT's motion for summary judgment, holding that a temperature control system, including an A/C unit, is considered a "part and appurtenance" of a locomotive under the LIA. The court found sufficient evidence that NJT's failure to maintain the A/C unit in proper condition posed an unnecessary danger of personal injury. During the trial, the court allowed Lupia to introduce a report to impeach NJT’s witness and permitted arguments regarding noneconomic damages. The jury awarded Lupia significant damages for lost earnings and pain and suffering.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that a temperature control system is an integral part of a locomotive and that NJT was required to maintain the A/C unit in safe operating condition once it chose to use it as part of its temperature control system. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the District Court's evidentiary rulings and its decision to allow arguments on noneconomic damages. View "Lupia v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc." on Justia Law

Neal Bissonnette and Tyler Wojnarowski, distributors for Flowers Foods, Inc., a major producer and marketer of baked goods, sued the company for alleged violations of state and federal wage laws. Flowers Foods moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The key issue was whether the exemption from coverage under the FAA for any "class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" is limited to workers whose employers are in the transportation industry.The District Court dismissed the case in favor of arbitration, stating that for Bissonnette and Wojnarowski to be exempt from the FAA, they must be "transportation workers." The court concluded that their broader scope of responsibility under the Distributor Agreements belied the claim that they were primarily truck drivers. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision on the alternative ground that Bissonnette and Wojnarowski "are in the bakery industry." According to the Second Circuit, §1 of the FAA exempts only "workers involved in the transportation industries."The Supreme Court of the United States disagreed with the Second Circuit's interpretation. The Court held that a transportation worker does not need to work for a company in the transportation industry to be exempt under §1 of the FAA. The Court emphasized that the relevant question is what the worker does for the employer, not what the employer does generally. The Court vacated the judgment of the Second Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Court did not express an opinion on any alternative grounds in favor of arbitration raised below. View "Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC" on Justia Law

This case involves two consolidated appeals from the Western District of Michigan and the Southern District of Ohio. The dispute revolves around how pizza delivery drivers should be reimbursed for the cost of using their personal vehicles for work. The delivery drivers argued that they should be reimbursed according to a mileage rate published by the IRS, while the employers contended that a “reasonable approximation” of the drivers’ expenses sufficed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit disagreed with both parties. The court held that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay each employee a wage of not less than $7.25 an hour. If the employer requires an employee to provide tools for work, the employer violates the Act if the cost of these tools cuts into the minimum or overtime wages required to be paid under the Act.Applying these standards, the court rejected the employers' argument that a “reasonable approximation” of a delivery driver’s cost of providing his vehicle is always sufficient reimbursement. Similarly, the court also rejected the drivers' argument that they should be reimbursed using the IRS standard-mileage rate for business deductions, as this rate is a nationwide average and does not accurately reflect an individual employee's actual costs.The court vacated the district courts’ decisions and remanded for further proceedings, suggesting that a potential solution could be a burden-shifting regime similar to those in Title VII cases. View "Bradford v. Team Pizza, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Joseph Brent Mattingly, an employee of R.J. Corman Railroad Services, LLC (“Corman Services”), suffered injuries while repairing a bridge owned and operated by Memphis Line Railroad (“Memphis Line”). Mattingly filed a lawsuit seeking recovery under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), which covers employees of common carriers by railroad. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that Mattingly was not employed by a common carrier, a prerequisite for FELA coverage.On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court rejected Mattingly’s argument that Corman Services, his employer, was a common carrier because it was part of a “unitary” railroad system managed by Corman Group. The court held that Corman Services' bridge repair and construction services did not provide an inextricable function for Memphis Line’s common carrier services and thus, did not qualify as a common carrier under FELA. The court further rejected Mattingly’s assertion that he was a “subservant” of a common carrier. The court found that Mattingly failed to demonstrate that Memphis Line, a common carrier, controlled or had the right to control the daily operations of Corman Services, as required to establish a master-servant relationship under common law.The court also held that Mattingly's claims regarding discovery issues were unpreserved for appeal, as he did not adequately inform the district court of his need for discovery in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). View "Mattingly v. R.J. Corman R.R. Grp., LLC" on Justia Law