Page 3
Ninth Circuit:
Airline Fuel Technician’s Wage Claims Are Exempt Under Federal Arbitration Act
Opinion Says Exception for Interstate Transportation Workers Applies
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A technician charged with fueling passenger and cargo airplanes is an interstate and foreign transportation worker for purposes of an exemption from coverage under the Federal Arbitration Act as having hands-on contact with cargo is not necessary to qualify for the exception, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Friday.
Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), codified at 9 U.S.C. §1 et seq., provides that “[a] written provision in any…contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration…shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable” but the act provides exceptions for certain classes of workers.
Sec. One provides that “nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”
The question of whether the plaintiff Danny Lopez qualifies as a worker “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” arose after he sued his employer for alleged violations of California’s wage and hour requirements. The employer moved to compel arbitration based on a provision in a document Lopez signed as part of his onboarding.
Circuit Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson authored the opinion affirming the denial by Chief District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee of the Central District of California of a motion to compel arbitration, Circuit Judge Holly A. Thomas and Senior Eighth U.S. Circuit Judge Michael J. Melloy, sitting by designation, joined in the opinion.
Labor Action
Lopez worked for the defendants, Aircraft Service International, Inc. and Menzies Aviation (USA), Inc. (collectively referred to in the opinion as “Menzies”), as a field technician in the fueling department at Los Angeles International Airport from approximately December 2007 to April 2021. He was tasked with physically adding fuel to airplanes involved in foreign and domestic interstate travel.
In July 2021, Lopez filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court asserting a single claim under the Private Attorneys General Act for wage and hour violations.
The defendants removed the action to federal court and filed a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA.
On Dec. 9, 2022, Gee denied the motion, writing in the minute order:
“Lopez, whose duties included physically adding fuel to planes, was directly involved in the transportation itself, not only the maintenance of the means by which goods were transported. The Court therefore concludes that Lopez is exempt from the requirements of the FAA pursuant to section 1.”
Rawlinson looked to two cases for guidance in determining whether a fuel technician qualifies as a worker “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” under the FAA—the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Southwest Airlines v. Saxon and the 2020 Ninth Circuit case of Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc. She noted that the Ninth Circuit has held that there is no conflict between the two cases.
In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court in Saxon opined that “any class of workers directly involved in transporting goods across state or international borders” falls under the exemption and found that an employee charged with physically loading and unloading cargo from airplanes qualifies.
In the Rittmann opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., the Ninth Circuit similarly found that Amazon delivery drivers who make the last-mile deliveries of products also qualify as they “form a part of the channels of interstate commerce, and are thus engaged in interstate commerce as we understand that term.”
Following the analytical approach in these two cases, Rawlinson reasoned that Lopez’s fueling of the airplanes was “a vital component of [the] ability to engage in the interstate and foreign transportation of goods” that he was engaged in the channels of foreign and interstate commerce for purposes of the exemption.
Handling of Goods
The jurist was unpersuaded by the defendants’ argument that Lopez is not exempt from arbitration because he never handled the goods or cargo. Rawlinson wrote:
“The Supreme Court did not impose a requirement in Saxon that the worker must have hands-on contact with goods and cargo or be directly involved in the transportation of the goods. Instead, the Supreme Court recognized that workers may be exempt from the FAA even ‘when the class of workers carries out duties further removed from the channels of interstate commerce or the actual crossing of borders.’ ”
The defendants also took issue with Gee citing cases interpreting what qualifies as employment in interstate commerce under other federal statutes. Rawlinson dismissed these concerns, noting that there has been a longstanding reliance on other pieces of federal legislation to interpret the text of the FAA.
She concluded:
“Contrary to Menzies’s argument, the district court faithfully applied Saxon’s analytical framework, our precedent as set forth in Rittmann, and the guidance from cases involving similar statutory language. We agree with the district court that Lopez, as a transportation worker engaged in [interstate] or foreign commerce, was exempt from the arbitration requirements imposed by the FAA.”
The case is Lopez v. Aircraft Service International, Inc., 23-55015.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company