Fifth Circuit Circumscribes Definition of Transportation Worker Under Federal Arbitration Act

               An employee who does not play a direct role in transportation of goods across borders is not exempt from §1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.

             Plaintiff Anthony Nichols sued Defendant Austin Bridge & Road LP (ABR) for retaliation after reporting safety violations to ABR managers.

               He worked as a dispatch coordinator and a commercial motor vehicle driver.  Dispatching duties included dispatching drivers to lay asphalt on “… interstate highways “ and “to repair, extend, and renew” interstate highways.  Drivers delivered hot mix asphalt from plants, all located in Texas, to ABR’s customers, all located in Texas.

               ABR filed a motion to compel arbitration.

               The Fifth Circuit compelled arbitration holding Nichols was not a transportation worker as he was not part of a class of workers directly engaged in interstate commerce.  He and the ABR drivers simply delivered goods within Texas and worked on projects involving instrumentalities of interstate commerce without ever playing a direct role in the transportation of goods across borders.

Anthony Nichols v Austin Bridge & Road LP, Civil Action No. 3:23-CV-1318-B (March 11, 2024).  United States District Court N.D. Texas.