Can Local Delivery Drivers Avoid Arbitration? What Flowers Foods v. Brock Means for Workers

Can Local Delivery Drivers Avoid Arbitration? What Flowers Foods v. Brock Means for Workers

If a worker spends every day making local deliveries within a single state, are they still participating in interstate commerce?

The United States Supreme Court recently rejected a narrow view of interstate commerce that would have excluded delivery drivers, gig workers, and others from pursuing claims in court. The case arose from a Colorado delivery driver who never crossed state lines in his work, but argued that his work was still part of interstate commerce.

Below, we’ll talk more about the case, why the decision matters, and the questions it leaves unresolved.

The facts of the case

The two key players in this case are Angelo Brock and Flowers Foods.

Flowers Foods is a producer of packaged baked foods operating bakeries in 19 states.

Angelo Brock is a franchisee of Flowers Foods.

Brock picked up baked goods from a Colorado warehouse and delivered them to local retailers. While conducting his business, Brock never left the state of Colorado.

In 2022, Brock filed a lawsuit against Flowers Foods in federal district court, alleging that the company underpaid him and other distributors.

Flowers Foods responded by pointing to an arbitration agreement that Brock had signed, which stated that he could only pursue a resolution to his claim through arbitration.

Why Did Arbitration Matter?

Arbitration is a resolution process that generally takes place outside a courtroom. It is often faster, less expensive, and private in comparison. That privacy factor is especially meaningful to companies, which may wish to keep misconduct from becoming a news story. While court can be a stressful experience, arbitration has been viewed negatively by workers and consumers, who may view arbitration as a way to keep broader issues under wraps.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The district court denied Flowers's motion to proceed to arbitration, which the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Their reasoning:

While Angelo Brock did not cross state lines himself, nor did her interact with anyone who crossed state lines, it was argued that his work formed part of the “interstate journey” of Flowers’s goods from out-of-state bakeries to their intended retail destinations.

Flowers Foods pushed back against this reasoning, casting doubt on the idea that being part of a journey entitles someone to certain protections. They petitioned for certiorari.

Certiorari is a Latin term that translates to “to be more fully informed.” Because lower courts had already made their decision, Flowers Foods asked a higher court to look at the case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard oral arguments on March 25, 2026.

THE COURT’S HOLDING AND ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Angelo Brock.

They held that the text of §1 did not create a bright-line ruling requiring workers to cross state lines or interact with vehicles that do so in order to qualify for the exemption.

While Flowers Foods had a more black-and-white interpretation of the law, the Supreme Court saw a shade of gray.

Justice Gorsuch stated that the contents of the FAA did not hold anything that could be used to compel arbitration in disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of any class of workers “engaged in…interstate commerce.”

The Court examined the terms listed at the time of FAA’s enactment. The Court observed that nothing in the terms requires an individual to physically cross state lines or interact with a vehicle that does. Interstate commerce includes transporting products “between points in one state and points in another state,” which by definition involves a “continuous carriage” across the limits of a single state before any cross-border activity.

A person can take part in, be employed in, or be involved in the continuous journey without leaving a state or touching vehicles that do.

The Court illustrated its reasoning with a hypothetical involving three drivers transporting Butterscotch Krimpets from a bakery in State B to a customer's headquarters in State A.

Under the hypothetical:

• Driver 1 carries the goods to the border
• Driver 2 moves them ten feet across the border
• Driver 3 completes the delivery entirely within State A

The Court observed that under Flowers's proposed rule, only Driver 2, the one who physically crossed the state line, would be considered engaged in interstate commerce, despite all three playing "a direct, active, and necessary part in ensuring the Krimpets got from a point in State B . . . to a point in State A." The Court concluded that this result "cannot be right."

The Court rooted its analysis in a long line of historical cases, most notably The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557 (1871), decided more than 150 years before the present case.

In The Daniel Ball, the Court held that a steamer transporting goods entirely within Michigan was "engaged in commerce between the States" because it was employed in transporting goods destined for other states or goods brought from outside Michigan. The steamer did not run in connection with any line of vessels or railway leading to other states, yet the Court held that "[t]he fact that several different and independent agencies are employed in transporting the commodity, some acting entirely in one State, and some acting through two or more States, does in no respect affect the character of the transaction."

CONTINUATION OF THE SUPREME COURT’S EXPANSIVE §1 TREND

The case between Angelo Brock and Flowers Foods is just the latest in a recent series of Supreme Court cases rejecting attempts to narrow the §1 exemption.

• New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira (2019): The Court held that the "contracts of employment" referenced in §1 include contracts governing independent contractors, not just formal employees.
• Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon (2022) The Court held that an airline worker who loaded and unloaded cargo qualified for §1's exemption even though she did not fly planes or otherwise cross state lines.
• Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC (2024): This case also involved Flowers Foods's distribution network. The Court held that a worker can fall within §1 regardless of whether he is employed in the "transportation industry" or some other, so long as his work "plays a direct and necessary role in the free flow of goods across borders."

What Questions Did the Court Leave Unanswered?

The Supreme Court was called upon to answer one question, but Flowers Foods and others have pointed out that other factors could at the very least change future rulings.

Flowers says that it conducts its business with Brock through a distribution agreement with an “independently operated company” that Brock owns, and that Brock orders, purchases, and takes title to the goods before selling them to local stores. So while the nature of the latest ruling pertains to interstate commerce, the question of how employment status factors in is unanswered.

These facts have generated divergent results in lower courts:

• Fli-Lo Falcon, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc (9th Cir. 2024): The Ninth Circuit held that §1 was inapplicable to a contract "between two business entities.”
• Silva v. Schmidt Baking Distribution, LLC (2nd Circ. 2025): The Second Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, holding §1 applicable to certain agreements with "single-employee corporations."
• Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc (9th Cir. 2020): The Ninth Circuit focused on whether the product has reached its “intended destination” under an interstate contract.
• Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock (10th Cir.): The Tenth Circuit similarly focused on whether goods had reached their intended destination under an interstate distribution system.
• Immediato v. Postmates, Inc. (1st Cir. 2022): The court held that couriers making purely local deliveries within a state were not engaged in interstate commerce.

The Court declined to resolve any of these questions because Flowers had "venture[d] all upon one cast," asking the Court to adopt only the bright-line cross-or-tag rule, without asking the Court to decide the legal significance of the independent-entity structure or the title-transfer arrangement. The Court simply held that "whatever other limits §1 may or may not contain," the statutory text cannot support the particular rule Flowers proposed. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit was therefore affirmed.

STRATEGIC ADVANTAGES FOR PLAINTIFFS IN SIMILAR SUPPLY CHAIN POSITIONS

The decision creates a clear framework that plaintiffs' attorneys can deploy for workers at various points in interstate supply chains. The Court's hypothetical involving three drivers demonstrates that the §1 exemption applies based on the functional role a worker plays in the interstate movement of goods, not on the technicality of whether the worker personally crosses a state line.

This framework is particularly advantageous for last-mile delivery workers, regional distributors, and warehouse workers who handle goods in transit between states but who never leave their home state. Plaintiffs in these roles can argue, consistent with Brock, that their intrastate activity "formed a constituent part" of a continuous interstate journey and therefore falls within §1.

CONCLUSION

Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock represents a decisive and unanimous rejection of the argument that workers must cross state lines or interact with interstate vehicles to qualify for the §1 exemption of the Federal Arbitration Act.

The Court's textual and historical analysis confirms that intrastate transportation workers who play a direct, necessary, and active role in the movement of goods on an interstate journey are entitled to the exemption, regardless of whether they personally leave their home state. For plaintiffs, the decision solidifies a favorable trajectory in Supreme Court jurisprudence and opens the courthouse doors to a broad category of workers who might otherwise have been forced into arbitration.

More about the author: Attorney Matthew Dowling

After A Truck Accident, Call The Firm That Cares

If you have been in a trucking accident, reach out to Nicolet Law for a free consultation. Call 1-855-NICOLET or send a message through our online contact form.