Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a class of workers actively engaged in interstate transportation must also be employed by a company in the transportation industry to be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION PRESENTED The Federal Arbitration Act exempts the “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 1. The First and Seventh Circuits have held that this exemption applies to any member of a class of workers that is engaged in foreign or interstate commerce in the same way as seamen and railroad employees—that is, any worker “actively engaged” in the interstate transportation of goods. The Second and Eleventh Circuits have added an additional requirement: The worker’s employer must also be in the “transportation industry.” The question presented is: To be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act, must a class of workers that is actively engaged in interstate transportation also be employed by a company in the transportation industry?
2024-04-12
Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-51_6647.pdf'>opinion</a> for a unanimous Court.
2024-02-20
Argued. For petitioners: Jennifer D. Bennett, San Francisco, Cal. For respondents: Traci L. Lovitt, New York, N. Y.
2024-01-18
Record received from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The record is electronic and is available on PACER.
2024-01-12
Reply of petitioners Neal Bissonnette, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2024-01-09
Record received electronically from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and available with the Clerk.
2024-01-05
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, February 20, 2024.
2024-01-05
Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
2023-12-20
Brief amicus curiae of Restaurant Law Center filed.
2023-12-20
Brief amici curiae of DRI Center for Law and Public Policy, et al. filed.
2023-12-20
Brief amicus curiae of Amazon.com, Inc. filed.
2023-12-20
Brief amicus curiae of The California Employment Law Council filed.
2023-12-20
Brief amici curiae of Professors Samuel Estreicher, et al. filed.
2023-12-20
Brief amicus curiae of Independent Bakers Association filed.
2023-12-20
Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.
2023-12-18
Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.
2023-12-13
Brief of respondents LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, et al. filed.
2023-11-20
Brief amicus curiae of American Association for Justice filed.
2023-11-20
Brief amici curiae of Illinois, et al. filed.
2023-11-20
Brief amicus curiae of National Academy of Arbitrators filed.
2023-11-20
Brief amicus curiae of Public Justice filed.
2023-11-20
Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.
2023-11-15
Brief amici curiae of National Employment Law Project, et al. filed.
2023-11-13
Brief of petitioners Neal Bissonnette, et al. filed.
2023-11-13
Joint appendix filed. (Statement of cost received.)
2023-09-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-09-05
Reply of petitioners Neal Bissonnette, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2023-08-21
Brief of respondents LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, et al. in opposition filed.
2023-07-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 21, 2023)
2023-06-08
Application (22A984) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until July 17, 2023.
2023-06-02
Application (22A984) to extend further the time from June 15, 2023 to July 15, 2023, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
2023-05-11
Application (22A984) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until June 15, 2023.
2023-05-09
Application (22A984) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 16, 2023 to June 15, 2023, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.