Welcome to sco Discast, a project of the Federalist Society for Law and Public
Policy Studies. Our contributors joined us from around the country to bring you expert
commentary on US Supreme Court cases as they are argued and the decisions are issued.
The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues.
All expressions are those of the speaker. Hello, and welcome to scot Discast.
I'm your host, Kyle hammernis On behalf of the Faculty division of the
Federalist Society. We are here today to discuss Bisonette versus Lapage Bakeries Park Street,
LLC, in which the Supreme Court issued a nine zero decision on April
twelfth, twenty twenty four. It is my honor to introduce our guests today,
Professor Samuel Striker. Professor Striker is the Dwight d. Opperman Professor of
Law and the director of the Center of Labor at New York University of Law.
And with that, I'd like to turn things over to our guest to
discuss the overview of the case and the Court's decision. Hi, thank you,
Kyle. I had written an amicus brief in this case is called Biscinet
versus the Page Bakery workers. The case has to do with an exception to
the Federal Arbitration Act, which was a nineteen twenty statute. Federal statue that
requires that all arbitration agreements are enforceable has written in a very important law in
advancing employment arbitration and other arbitration of other kinds of disputes as well. Many
states have similar statutes this. The federal statue has an exception in it for
I'll just reach you the language contracts of employment of cmen, railroad employees,
or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. So the
question in Bisonette was the plaintiffs in this case were drivers for the Page bakeres.
The Page Bakery is one of the biggest baked goods manufacturers and deliveries in
the country, and these folks drove those trucks bringing the baked goods to particular
retail outlets in Connecticut. They also had some quasi salesman functions. This is
something very common in the baked goods area, where the deliver also has to
sort of make sure that the product is properly displayed, that it's displayed at
a level where the customer sees it and also introduces a new product sales.
This is very common. I know this from my experience representing Free Dela,
in which they do the same thing. So the question was whether these workers
are covered by the exception. They're obviously engaged in transportation tasks. It's not
clear. It's not clear that a majority of their tasks. We'll talk about
that in a moment, but the assumption is for purposes of the decision,
which by the way, was nine zero, which is not that which is
not that common in the Supreme Court. But it was a nine zero decision
for the drivers, for the drivers against the page of bakeries. The question
is is this an industry based exception or is it just individual workers. It
was an industry based exception, then we'd like to know what industry these drivers
were working in. And it would seem it seemed to me anyway writing the
Ambi his grief, that they were engaged in a retail bakery business or a
wholesale bakery business, but they were not engaged in a transportation industry. They
were doing incidental tasks. They were important tasks, but tasks for the bakery,
but they themselves were not in a transportation industry. And our argument in
our brief was that Congress actually meant a kind of industry based exception because they
were trying to exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act workers and industries that were already
regulated by the federal government and had already provided for dispute resolution mechanism. So
that was the basic theory of our amethust brief that if you look at the
language, but you look at it in the light of the purpose. The
purpose was to exempt industries that were already regulated by Congress, that had already
provided for dispute resolution machinery, which might conflict with the basic model of the
court based Federal Arbitration Act. That was our theory. We thought there was
some support for it. We knew there was some support for it in Circuit
City, which is the case I was also involved in. And so that
was the theory of the amicist brief. The Supreme Court nine to zero basically
rely in part relying on a textual analysis in which they say that the focus
of the exemption that I've read to you is a worker based exemption. I'm
not sure the textual analysis goes quite as far as the court says, because
it says contracts of employment have seen in railroad employees, any other class workers
engaged in foreigner interstate commerce. And I thought Euston generous the examples. We
control the residual glass, but that's not what the court holds. The court
holes and so they're basing it on a so called textual analysis. But it's
not clear that the text really carries the court as far as its thought.
But they're also basing it on a decision previously decided by the Supreme Court which
involved ramp agents for Southwest Airlines Airlines. This case is called Saxon Saxo n
versus Southwest Airlines, and the question in that case was whether or not the
ramp agents were engaged in a transportation industry. The Supreme Court rejected the argument
of Southwest Airlines that it was an industry based analysis. In other words,
that we couldn't say that everyone that works with Southwest Airlines is a transportation worker.
We have to get the actual tasks of the particular worker. So and
Saxon had language that the focus is on what the worker does, not on
what the employer does. That was the language, and arguably that language was
fairly broad and could have been narrow to decide the case. But that's the
language, and it was also a unanimous decision. The Chief Judge did not
participate for other reasons. It was eight zero. So you have an eight
zero decision of the Supreme Court that has language that says it's an industry based
It's not an industry based exemption. It is a worker based exemption. So
what the Supreme Court did, going back to bisin f versus Lapage bakeries nine
zero, relying in part on a textual analysis and in part on the language
that was used in Saxon, which I think was broader than necessary to decide
the case inex and any of them. That's where we are. The Court
said that there were certain open questions that it was not decided, so I'll
read them to you. One question was whether these people were transportation workers.
Well, they were transportation workers in a sense most of their task. We'd
have to do it. We'd have to do a time at time analysis of
their time. And maybe this is truly an open question, looking at whether
or not the majority of their time was spent in these various sales functions,
sales promotion functions, or was a majority of their time spent in transportation and
that would be something on Reman. The court repeated language from Saxon that the
workers have to be actively engaged in interstate commerce. They have to have a
direct and necessary role in interstate commerce. I don't like to make short term
predictions, but I'm not sure this is going to be much of an avenue
for the page, but I'm sure they got to try to pursue it.
Another question is really interesting is they left open whether these workers were engaged in
foreigner interstate sorry, whether these drivers were engaged in foreigner in state commerce because
they delivered only in Connecticut. This is really interesting because I think some members
of the court would like to go back to a narrower version of the commerce
boss in Article one, Section eight, and there are other cases that have
been filed with the Sambrinko raising the same issue. I happen to be a
Natists. I know that I'm on a fedsock program, but I'm a nationalist
and I wrote an enormous paper in high school on Frankfurt and the commerce clause.
So I'd hate to see us going back to a view of the commerce
closure said, until it gets into interstate commerce, it's not within the power
of Congress to regulate. These people may have sold only in Connecticut, but
their ingredients, I'm sure came from other places in the country, so that
needs to be examined as well. So those are two open questions. Let
me offer you a third one that is not mentioned by the Supreme Court.
Many states and some localities have similar statutes to the Federal Arbitration Statute, in
which they say that you know these contracts are enforceable as written. Well,
there'll be different language, but the basic idea is that arbitration agreements are enforceable
because the old common law. The old common law was that arbitration agreements were
not enforceable until they were reduced to an award, that you can sort of
opt out of arbitration at any point until they were reduced to an award,
and the Federal Arbitration Act was intended to override that common law. The position
as worth these state laws. So the question is, could could a bakery
like the page say, well, maybe not enforceable under the Federal Arbitration actors
they fall within his transportation worker exception. But maybe they're enforceable under a state
law. Now we'd have to look at the text of the state law,
and a state law could not in fact override federal statutory provision. So to
the extent the page wants the benefit of an implicit jury trial waiver whenever you
have arbitration, that may not apply if you're only relying on the state statue.
This is an opening question, by the way, an open question.
I'm just pointing out it's a third open question. Uh, that will have
to be dissolved down the road. Anything else I can give you, Sarah,
Yeah, so I think you know, could you go a little bit
more, maybe explain a little bit more how the the court came to a
So basically, the exception is that this is a worker who has some functions
in an industry or has some functions that in another industry are covered right by
this federal statue. Am I getting there? None? Zip is that it's
an industry based except sorry, it's a worker based exception. It looks so
could you could you explain the difference in how you would read an industry based
exception versus a worker based exception. Now, after this this case, I
don't think it's going to work under the Federal Arbitration Act. So the question
is, is Congress and passing on the statute very unlikely. The plane off
bar and their friends and allies and Congress hate arbitration even though it's good for
most workers. That's been my view, because they get a hearing. So
I don't think we're going to see new legislation for quite some time. So
that's why I brought up the two open questions of the court mentioned. Yeah,
the application of state and local law, Okay, possible some states would
take an industry based view of their statues. It's their statutes. We're talking
about the state statutes, state laws. So that's a possibility. And the
other possibilities that these folks, even though they were involved in transportation desks,
they spent them, you know, the predominant part of their time in the
sales function. You know, based on my experience many many years ago,
I'd say thirty years ago, as Freedo lay, I don't think it's likely.
I think it's likely most of their time has spent delivering goods. But
that's a factual question has to be resolved. The other question I mentioned to
you is really interesting are they engaged interstate commerce when they sell all in Connecticut?
So that is something I'm sure Lapage Bakery is going to focus on.
I say that other station is doing this as well, and maybe we could
have a Scotis interview on that. There's a recent decision striking down the Corporate
Transparency Act in part. This is an act that requires everyone that is planning
in corporation to file information with the United States government. And one of the
arguments is that when you have started a corporation but you haven't done anything yet,
you're not an interstate commerce. So that's an important case CTA, the
Corporate Transparency Act, which I advise you to have a Scotis interview on.
And the best person there would be my good friend Thomas Lee from Fordham University,
because he argued this he won in a district court. Let me assure
you this is on appeal and there's going to be a lot of contention around
it because it's the same issue I just highlighted for you. Is it within
the power of Congress under the Interstate Commerce claws to regulate activities before they actually
enter into the stream of interstate Nice thank you for listening to this episode of
SCO Discast. Scot Discust is a project of the Federalist Society, a not
for profit educational organization of conservative and libertarian law students, law professors, and
lawyers, founded upon the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that
the separation of governmental power is essential to our constitution, and that it is
emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is,
not what it should be. Don't forget to subscribe to our podcast series,
including SCO Discasts and Practice Group Podcast on iTunes or Google Play. For an
archive of past podcasts, as well as audio and video of past Federalist Society
events, please visit our website at fedsock dot org slash multimedia. That's f
E d s OC dot org slash multimedia. This has been a FEDSOC audio production.