On May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock substantially expanding  which types of workers can avoid forced arbitration and bring their employment claims in court. 

If you drive for a delivery service, if you load trucks at a distribution center, if you pick up goods at a regional warehouse and deliver them to local stores, or if you signed a distribution agreement that includes an arbitration clause, the ruling may directly affect your ability to sue for unpaid wages, misclassification as an independent contractor, expense reimbursement, or other workplace claims.

In 5 rulings dating back to 2011, the Court has consistently broadened the exemptions making more workers eligible to bring their disputes before a judge or jury rather than a private arbitrator.

The decision matters most for last-mile delivery drivers: workers who carry goods on the final leg of their journey from a manufacturer or distribution center to local retailers or customers, such as the bread distributors in question in the Brock case.Many of these workers have spent years funneled into private arbitration with class action waivers in their employment agreements. The Flowers Foods ruling means a substantial number of them can now bring their claims in court. 

What is the Federal Arbitration Act? 

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), enacted in 1925, is the federal law that generally requires courts to enforce private arbitration agreements. Arbitration is private dispute resolution system  where claims aredecided by a private arbitrator (often a former judge or experienced lawyer) selected through procedures set out in the agreement and typically paid for by the employer. Arbitrators issue decisions, and those decisions are typically final, with very limited options for appeal. 

In employment contexts, an arbitration agreements are  usually signed at the time of hire as part of the employment paperwork and the employee is not given any time to consider the agreement and is often unaware that they are signing it as they are rushed to complete the onboarding process. When a dispute later arises between the worker and the employer, the agreement requires the dispute go to arbitration instead of to court. Most employment arbitration agreements also include a class action waiver, meaning the worker cannot bring or join with other workers to bring a collective or representative lawsuit.  

The federal preference for enforcing arbitration agreements has expanded significantly since the 1980s, and the Supreme Court has generally upheld the use of these agreements in employment settings. In 2018, the Court held in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis that class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements were enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. 

The practical result for many workers with unpaid wage and similar employment claims is that they are forced to proceed in individual arbitrations which lack the structure of the judicial system and are often abused by employers to delay resolution of an employee’s claims  

The Transportation Worker Exemption 

Section 1 of the FAA 9 U.S.C. § 1, contains a specific carve-out or “exemption”. The law does not apply to “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 

When this exemption applies, the Federal Arbitration Act does not require courts to enforce arbitration agreements with the worker.  

For decades, the carve-out applied mostly to its specifically named groups (seamen and railroad employees) and other workers in similar transportation roles. The Supreme Court has progressively expanded who counts as a covered transportation worker, and the Flowers Foods ruling extends that expansion to a category of workers many employers had argued were not covered: last-mile delivery drivers whose own routes do not cross state lines. 

Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock (May 28, 2026) 

The plaintiff, Angelo Brock, was a last-mile delivery driver who distributed baked goods manufactured by Flowers Foods. The bread was produced at facilities outside Colorado and shipped to Colorado for local distribution. Brock’s route was wholly within Colorado. He never crossed state lines, and he never personally interacted with vehicles that did. 

The employer argued the FAA’s transportation worker exemption should not apply because Brock himself did not engage in interstate transportation or cross state lines. The Court rejected that argument. 

The Court held that workers who transport goods on the intrastate (i.e., within just one state) leg of an interstate journey qualify for the exemption even when they never cross state lines and never interact with cross-border vehicles. The decision was unanimous, authored by Justice Gorsuch, and affirms the Tenth Circuit. 

The Court’s reasoning rested on the meaning of “interstate commerce” at the time the Federal Arbitration Act was passed in 1925. Congress understood interstate commerce to include the entire transportation journey of goods, from origin to final retail destination. Workers who play a direct, active, and necessary part in that journey are engaged in interstate commerce, regardless of how short their individual segment of the journey is. 

Who is Exempt from Mandatory Arbitration After Flowers Foods 

The decision most directly affects last-mile delivery drivers. Common worker categories that the ruling reaches include: 

Delivery Service Partner (DSP) drivers, who deliver Amazon packages from regional distribution centers to local customers. The packages typically originated at distant fulfillment centers and traveled through an interstate logistics network before reaching the DSP driver. 

Delivery company ground contractor drivers and contractor drivers, workers who deliver packages from regional sorting facilities to local addresses. The packages frequently originated outside the delivery state. 

Franchise distributors and similar baked goods distributors (and other large bakery distribution networks), whose products are manufactured at out-of-state facilities and shipped to in-state distribution for retail delivery. 

Food service distribution drivers for major food supply companies and regional food distributors, delivering institutional and restaurant food orders that originated through interstate supply chains. 

Pharmaceutical distribution drivers, delivering medicines from wholesale distributors to retail pharmacies, with the products typically originating at out-of-state pharmaceutical manufacturers. 

Grocery delivery drivers in chain grocery internal distribution networks where the goods originated out of state and arrived in the delivery area through interstate logistics. 

Large retail chain last-mile drivers in distribution structures that include interstate supply chains. 

The common pattern in each of these examples: goods originate out of state, arrive at a regional warehouse or distribution facility, and are then delivered locally by workers who do not personally cross state lines. 

Workers in these roles can now assert the exemption against forced arbitration but Whether the exemption applies in a specific case still depends on the facts: the origin of the goods, the structure of the supply chain, the nature of the worker’s role, and the structure of the employment or distribution agreement and other issues. 

Employment Law Firm

A consultation with an attorney experienced in transportation worker employment claims can help evaluate the specifics of an individual situation: whether the exemption applies, which law governs, and what recoveries and damages may be available. 

If you drive for a last-mile delivery operation, if you signed an arbitration agreement when you started, if your employer has classified you as an independent contractor when you believe you should be an employee, or if you have not been reimbursed for vehicle costs, fuel, or other necessary work expenses, the Flowers Foods decision may give you legal options that were not available before May 28, 2026.