Flowers Foods v. Brock: Supreme Court Says Last-Mile Drivers Can Fall Outside the Federal Arbitration Act

On May 28, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock and ruled that a driver who handles only the in-state portion of a shipment’s interstate trip may still fall within the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exemption, even if the driver never leaves the state or deals with vehicles that cross its borders ¹². The decision was unanimous, with Justice Gorsuch writing for the Court ³. For counsel who handle wage, classification and contract disputes with delivery workers, the ruling means more of those cases may land in court, and in court-ordered mediation, rather than in private arbitration.

The facts and the holding

Flowers Foods produces packaged baked goods at bakeries in 19 states and relies in part on franchisees who buy distribution rights in specific territories ¹. Angelo Brock, a franchisee serving the Denver area, picked up products from a Colorado warehouse and delivered them to local stores without leaving the state ¹. In 2022 he sued, alleging that the company underpaid him and other distributors in violation of federal and state law ¹. Flowers moved to compel arbitration under his distribution agreement; the district court denied the motion and the Tenth Circuit affirmed ¹.

Section 1 of the FAA carves out the employment agreements of any class of workers “engaged in . . . interstate commerce” ¹. Flowers urged a categorical test: no worker could be exempt without personally crossing a state border or working with vehicles that make such crossings ¹. The Court rejected that rule. Reading the words as they were understood when the FAA was enacted, it concluded that interstate commerce covers an unbroken shipment that starts in one state and finishes in another, even when most of the trip happens inside one state’s borders ¹. The Court also relied on historical precedent, including The Daniel Ball, which treated a steamer operating entirely within Michigan as engaged in interstate commerce because it carried goods moving to or from other states ¹.

What the Court left open

The opinion is narrow in important ways. Flowers suggested other reasons Brock might fall outside Section 1, including that the agreement ran with his independently operated business rather than with him personally, and that he bought and took title to the goods before reselling them ¹. The Court noted that lower courts have treated facts like these as relevant, but declined to decide their significance because Flowers did not squarely present them ¹. Commentators have also emphasized that the decision does not make all local delivery work exempt; drivers whose work is entirely local and unconnected to goods moving across state lines remain outside the exemption ³.

Foley Hoag describes Flowers as the fourth decision in recent years to expand Section 1, following New Prime v. Oliveira (2019), Southwest Airlines v. Saxon (2022) and Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries (2024) ³.

Practical effects for dispute resolution

When the exemption applies, employers cannot rely on the FAA to compel these workers to arbitrate, so their claims can stay in court ³. For distributor, franchise and gig-based delivery models, that shifts negotiating leverage. Brock’s own suit alleged underpayment of both him and other distributors ¹, and claims of that kind that companies expected to resolve in private arbitration may now proceed on a court docket.

For mediation, several points follow:

• Threshold motions shape timing. A contested motion to compel can hold a case in place for months. Where the exemption plainly applies after Flowers, parties may reach the merits, and a mediated resolution, sooner.
• The open questions are bargaining issues. Whether a franchise agreement with a business entity is a “contract of employment,” and whether taking title to goods ends the interstate journey, remain unresolved at the Supreme Court ¹. Those uncertainties carry real litigation risk for both sides and belong in any settlement analysis.
• Agreements may be redrafted. Foley Hoag advises employers to review whether arbitration agreements with these workers remain enforceable ³, and any redraft is an opportunity to consider a mediation step before litigation.

Federal courts in Florida, like all courts, must apply the Court’s reading of Section 1. Counsel facing a motion to compel in light of Flowers will want to assess the worker’s role in the interstate chain at the outset.

Counsel looking for a certified mediator for an employment or commercial dispute can check Tony Roca’s live availability and book a mediation by Zoom statewide.