Amazon backs Flowers Foods at SCOTUS on delivery driver legal status

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme Court is reviewing the legal status of bakery drivers for Flowers Foods, focusing on whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) transportation exemption applies to workers who do not cross state lines [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Context - The Supreme Court previously ruled that bakery drivers are classified as transportation workers, not bakery workers, which affects their legal rights under the FAA [2]. - The FAA transportation exemption applies to workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce, but its interpretation has led to varying decisions across federal circuit courts [3][5]. - The 10th Circuit found that delivery drivers for Flowers Foods are part of an interstate commerce supply chain, allowing them to pursue grievances in court rather than arbitration [6]. Group 2: Amicus Briefs and Stakeholders - Significant entities, including Amazon, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and several states, have filed amicus briefs supporting Flowers Foods' argument regarding the FAA exemption [4][8]. - Amazon argues that local delivery drivers do not engage in interstate commerce and therefore should not be covered by the FAA exemption [10][11]. Group 3: Definitions and Interpretations - Amazon's brief emphasizes that the definition of interstate commerce should focus on whether workers actively transport goods across state lines, rather than the broader business activities of their employer [11][17]. - The concept of a "continuous interstate journey" is debated, with the 10th Circuit asserting that local delivery is the final leg of an interstate route, while Amazon contends that local delivery does not equate to interstate commerce [12][17]. Group 4: Relevant Case Law - The brief references previous cases, such as Bisonette and Southwest Airlines vs. Saxon, to illustrate differing interpretations of worker status under the FAA [13][14]. - Amazon argues that the distinctions between the roles of delivery drivers and other workers involved in interstate commerce should be clearly defined to avoid arbitrary legal outcomes [15][16].