Updated September 3, 2025

Contrary to most workers, those who qualify as “transportation workers” cannot be forced into arbitration because of hidden fine print. Other workers can be forced to sign an agreement to get and keep a job, and that agreement may contain language requiring the employee to give up their rights to sue in court and to band together with others in class action cases. Under current federal law, namely the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16) (“FAA”), these provisions in employment and consumer contracts are generally enforceable. These arbitration agreements deprive workers of their rights, but notably, transportation workers are exempted from this law and cannot be forced into arbitration or restricted from class actions.

For example, in 2020 the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts decided that Lyft could be sued in a class action case by its workers notwithstanding an otherwise-valid arbitration provision. The decision rested on the court’s view that Lyft drivers are “transportation workers” under the law. The court reached that conclusion partly because Lyft drivers transported passengers from Logan Airport on their first or last leg of their interstate journeys. That was critical because the focus in determining whether a worker who transports goods or people is a “transportation worker” centers on the connection between those goods or passengers and travel between different states and countries, in contrast to traveling within one state’s boundaries. (See Cunningham v. Lyft)

When analyzing whether a worker transporting goods is a “transportation worker,” the key questions are:

• first, whether the employee works in the transportation industry
• second, whether the employee is directly responsible for transporting the goods in interstate commerce
• third, whether the employee handles goods that travel interstate
• fourth, whether the employee supervises employees who are themselves transportation workers, such as truck drivers
• fifth, whether, like seamen or railroad employees, the employee is within a class of employees for which special arbitration already existed when Congress enacted the FAA
• sixth, whether the vehicle itself is vital to the commercial enterprise of the employer
• seventh, whether a strike by the employee would disrupt interstate commerce
• eighth, the nexus that exists between the employee’s job duties and the vehicle the employee uses in carrying out his duties

The case that listed the eight questions, Lenz v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 431 F.3d 348, 352 (8th Cir. 2005), is often cited by courts when conducting an analysis of these factors.

UPDATE, July 17, 2020: The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Waithaka v. Amazon, No. 19-1848 (July 17, 2020) ruled that “last-mile” delivery drivers for Amazon (who Amazon had classified as independent contractors) could not be forced to arbitrate their claims or be denied their rights to be part of a class action under Section 1 of the FAA. As the Court put it, “Waithaka and other last-mile delivery workers who haul goods on the final legs of interstate journeys are transportation workers ‘engaged in . . . interstate commerce,’ regardless of whether the workers themselves physically cross state lines.”

UPDATE, August 2025: Cunningham v. Lyft was appealed to the First Circuit, where the court reversed the District Court decision. The First Circuit held that Lyft drivers are actually not “transportation workers” and therefore not exempt under the FAA. The court rejected the argument that Lyft drivers affect interstate commerce. Referring to Waithaka, the court found that Amazon delivery drivers are distinguishable from Lyft drivers as “Amazon…agreed with Amazon customers to transport goods interstate from their point of origin to the customer’s home.” In contrast, Lyft drivers have no such agreement with airports. Additionally, the First Circuit found that Lyft drivers do not cross state lines often enough to meet the exemption. Cunningham v. Lyft, Inc., 17 F.4^th 244 (2021).

In 2022, the First Circuit also held that Postmates delivery drivers do not qualify as transportation workers under the FAA on similar grounds. Immediato v. Postmates, Inc., 54 F.4^th 67 (2022).

Two recent Supreme Court cases have provided further clarity on the standard for transportation workers. Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022) held that a ramp supervisor, who was responsible for loading and unloading baggage and mail on planes, meets the exemption. This worker “belongs to a class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” even though the worker herself was not crossing borders. To determine if someone is a transportation worker, it is important to look at what the worker does for the company and not what the employer does in general. Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024) added that a worker does not have to work in the transportation industry to qualify for the exemption.

If you feel that you are as a transportation worker and believe that you have been misclassified as an independent contractor or otherwise been deprived of wages, feel free to reach out to us at 617-338-9400 for a free case review.