Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, ARBITRATION—D. Minn.: FAA’s transportation worker exemption did not apply to regional retail-store manager, (Aug 13, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

Several of job duties he described—such as his participation in deliveries, repossessions, investigations, and quarterly meetings—were “plainly occasional,” and thus did not demonstrate that the exemption applied.

A federal district court in Minnessota rejected a regional retail-store manager’s contention that he was a transportation worker engaged in foreign or interstate commerce and thus exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), granting the employer’s motion to compel arbitration of his whistleblower and retaliatory discharge claims. Applying the two-step framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, the court concluded that: (1) the employee belonged to “a class of workers who manage or oversee multiple household-goods retail store locations within a defined geographic territory”; and (2) he failed to show that “the interstate movement of goods was a central part of the job description of the class of workers to which he belonged” (Wilson v. Get It Now, LLC, No. 25-cv-1067 (ECT/DTS) (D. Minn. Aug. 11, 2025)).

Lawsuit. The employee worked as a district manager for Get It Now, LLC—a retailer that “operates stores that sell or lease household goods and appliances in Wisconsin under the name Get It Now and in Minnesota under the name Home Choice.” After he was terminated, he brought this action against the employer alleging he was fired in retaliation for reporting the company’s illegal activities and seeking workers’ compensation benefits, in violation of the state’s whistleblower and workers’ compensation laws. In response, the employer moved to compel arbitration of his claims.

FAA exemption. The employee acknowledged signing an arbitration agreement that covered employment-related claims. However, he argued that his claims could not be arbitrated since he was subject to the FAA’s transportation worker exemption, which specifies 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.” 9 U.S.C. §1. Recently, in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024), the Supreme Court clarified “[a] transportation worker need not work in the transportation industry to fall within the exemption.”

Two-step framework. In Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, the Supreme Court set forth a two-step framework to determine whether the transportation-worker exemption applies. First, the court defines the relevant “class of workers” to which the plaintiff belongs. Second, the court determines whether that class of workers is “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”

“Class of workers.” The court rejected the employee’s broad assertion that the class of workers to which he belonged was “transportation workers.” And while the parties’ emphasized different aspects of his work duties, the court found that they agreed upon the “broader worker class” to which he belonged. Thus, the court concluded he belonged to “a class of workers who manage or oversee multiple household-goods retail store locations within a defined geographic territory.”

“Engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” The next and determining issue was whether this class of workers is engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. Notably, the Supreme Court has held that a class of workers need not cross state lines to be covered, nor does the class need to work for employers who operate in the transportation industry. Rather, courts look to whether the interstate movement of goods is a “central part” of the job description. A class of workers does not qualify for the exemption just because its members “occasionally” participate in the interstate movement of goods, explained the court.

Saxon. Turning to the Supreme Court’s Saxon decision for guidance, the Court there held airline ramp supervisors who loaded or unloaded cargo on and off airplanes bound for a different state or country were “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” and thus fell within the transportation worker exemption. “In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasized the frequency with which the cargo-loader class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce-directed work,” explained the district court.

Interstate duties not central to his job. Here, however, the employee failed to show that regional managers who oversee multiple household-goods retail store locations are engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. He generally described the extent to which the stores and staff he managed marketed, sold, and delivered goods to Wisconsin residents. For example, he stated that he directly coordinated, scheduled, and approved interstate transactions as part of his core managerial responsibilities.” However, the court found that several of the activities he described—like his participation in deliveries, repossessions, investigations, and quarterly meetings—were “plainly occasional,” and as such did not contribute to demonstrating that the exemption applied.

He also failed to demonstrate that any interstate-commerce related duties were central to his district-manager position. The court found this “especially problematic” since he did not dispute the accuracy of the job description provided by the employer, which listed high-level responsibilities and did not make any mention of the interstate movement of goods. Thus, the court found it “difficult to understand how the fact that the stores he managed sold goods to Wisconsin residents might show that the transportation-worker exemption applied.”

Narrow exemption. Indeed, “it would be difficult to distinguish countless other retail workers who oversee or participate in the interstate sale of goods,” the result of which “would seem at odds with the Supreme Court’s characterization of the exemption as ‘narrow.’” In addition, several of the activities he described—like his participation in merchandise deliveries, repossessions, investigations, and quarterly meetings—were plainly occasional. Finally, considering the class’s central job duties, the court found it “difficult to see how cases involving Amazon’s ‘last-mile’ delivery drivers, coal workers, and ride-share-service drivers might be analogous to a case involving a class of workers comprising regional retail-store managers.”

The case is No. 25-cv-1067 (ECT/DTS).

Judge: Tostrud, E.

Attorneys: Blaine L.M. Balow (HKM Employment Attorneys) for Ryan Wilson. Robert F. Friedman (Littler Mendelson) for Get It Now, LLC.

Companies: Get It Now, LLC

Cases: Arbitration Discharge Retaliation Whistleblowers MinnesotaNews