Supreme Court Says Local Delivery Workers May Avoid Forced Arbitration
A unanimous SCOTUS ruling in Flowers Foods v. Brock says a Colorado bread distributor can sue in court, not arbitration, even though he never crossed a state line.
On May 28, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock that a local delivery driver who never crosses a state line can still avoid being forced into arbitration. The decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, lets a Colorado bread distributor take his underpayment lawsuit to federal court instead of into the private arbitration process his contract required. It settles a narrow but practically important question: who counts as a "transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce" under federal arbitration law.
The Dispute
Flowers Foods, headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia, is one of the largest packaged bakery food producers in the United States, with bakeries in 19 states. It is the company behind Wonder Bread and several other supermarket brands. To get those products to local stores, Flowers depends on a network of distributors who buy the distribution rights to a specific geographic area.
Angelo Brock is one of those distributors. He works the Denver area: he picks up bakery products from a warehouse in Colorado and delivers them to local stores. The important fact for this case is that Brock never leaves Colorado while on his route.
In 2022, Brock sued Flowers in federal district court, alleging the company had underpaid him and other distributors under federal and state wage laws. Flowers responded by trying to move the case out of court and into arbitration, citing the arbitration clause in his distributor agreement.
The Legal Fight
Arbitration is a private dispute-resolution process. Instead of a public courtroom and a judge, the case goes to a private arbitrator chosen under the contract. Companies favor arbitration because cases resolve faster, more privately, and often on terms more favorable to the company than a jury trial.
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) generally requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements. But Section 1 of the FAA (9 U.S.C. ยง 1) carves out "contracts of employment" for workers "engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." Transportation workers who move goods across state lines cannot be forced into arbitration through the FAA, even if their contracts say they can be.
The fight was over whether Brock fit inside that Section 1 carve-out. Flowers Foods argued he did not. Brock's work was local, he personally never crossed a state line, and he never drove a vehicle that did. Brock argued the opposite: the question is not where the driver goes, but where the goods go. Flowers' bread products move from out-of-state bakeries into a Colorado warehouse, then onto his truck, then to Denver stores. His route is one leg of a longer interstate journey, and that is enough.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court sided with Brock, 9-0.
Justice Gorsuch's opinion rejected Flowers' argument that a worker must personally cross a state line or drive a vehicle that does. The court held that a worker can qualify for the Section 1 exemption if the worker transports goods on an intrastate leg of a larger interstate journey, even if the worker themselves never leaves the state.
It is worth noting what the court did not decide. The ruling did not address whether Brock was actually underpaid, or whether his classification as an independent distributor (rather than an employee) was correct. Those questions go back to the lower court. The Supreme Court ruled only that Flowers cannot force Brock into arbitration based on the state-line argument.
What This Means
Companies that use distributor or driver contracts to push wage and misclassification disputes into private arbitration just lost a major argument. The "your driver never left the state" defense is gone.
For workers tied to national supply chains, the practical effect is real. A warehouse loader, a last-mile delivery driver, a local distributor: if their work is one leg of goods moving across state lines, they may now be able to invoke the Section 1 exemption and take their case to a real court.
Workers still have to prove the interstate-journey piece. A local pizza driver delivering pizzas made and consumed entirely within one state probably does not qualify. A local distributor of nationally-produced bread, however, almost certainly does.
What Happens Next
A Supreme Court ruling on a question of federal statutory interpretation cannot be appealed in the ordinary sense. The only ways to change the rule going forward are a future Supreme Court decision narrowing or overruling this one, or an act of Congress amending the FAA.
The narrow framing of the ruling leaves room for both sides to fight again. The court said an intrastate leg of an interstate journey can qualify, but it did not say every local delivery job will. Expect new disputes over what counts as "interstate commerce" in industries where the goods, routes, and worker classifications are less clear-cut than packaged bread leaving a Flowers warehouse.
For now, the rule is settled. A delivery worker does not have to cross a state line to claim the FAA Section 1 transportation-worker exemption.
Read the full opinion (PDF, Supreme Court).
This is general information, not legal advice. If you have a specific situation involving arbitration agreements or wage claims, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.