Delivery Drivers Compelled to Arbitrate

August 3, 2022

Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held in favor of Grubhub, in the matter of Archer v. Grubhub, Inc., by applying the narrow interpretation of “exempt workers” engaging in “interstate commerce” under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In 2017, Grubhub, Inc. electronically sent an arbitration agreement to all of its employees. The agreement contained language that the employee agreed to arbitrate claims brought against the company regarding retaliation, wage and compensation, and that the agreement was to be governed by the FAA. In 2019, Grubhub workers filed suit against the company alleging claims under the Wage Act, Tips Act, and Minimum Wage Act, as well as a retaliation claim. In 2020, the company filed its motion to dismiss the action and a motion to compel arbitration enforceable under the FAA. The trial court denied the motions and held that because the nature of employment consisted of transporting and delivering goods that may have originated outside of Massachusetts, the workers fell within the exemption of being involved in interstate commerce under the FAA. Grubhub appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court.


At the Supreme Court, Grubhub argued the narrow exemption under the FAA only applies to those “workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” namely, “contracts of employment of seamen,” or “railroad employees.” The court looked to the language in the statute and defined transportation workers as those “actually engaged in the movement of goods in interstate commerce.” The Grubhub workers were compared to those involved in the trucking industry whose main duty was to transport goods across state lines. In further comparison, similar cases have been brought in the Seventh Circuit, where Grubhub workers were considered transportation workers but not held to have engaged in interstate commerce. The Massachusetts Supreme Court relied on strict statutory interpretation and precedent in its conclusion that the Grubhub workers were not connected to moving those goods across state or national borders.


We’re in New England. What about those drivers, cities, or towns that fall on the state lines? The Massachusetts Supreme Court began its interpretation of the statute by looking to the plain language, which states it applies to “a class of workers.” It held that based on this language, the statute applied to the class itself and not an individual employee. Thus, if the class is engaged in interstate commerce, then so is the individual, but not the other way around. Overall, because the delivery drivers delivered food to and from local restaurants, eateries and convenience stores, it was not enough to find the “class” was engaging in interstate commerce. 


This decision upholds the purpose of the FAA and the judicial backing of enforcing arbitration agreements. In this new era of delivery and ease on consumers, Grubhub delivery drivers, and similar delivery services of the like, such as Uber and DoorDash, will be compelled to arbitrate their claims.

 

If you have questions about this topic, or any other general employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Client Update: Supreme Court Ends Nationwide Injunctions—What Employers Need to Know

July 25, 2025
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA that federal district courts cannot block executive orders for the entire country. The Court held that such broad injunctions exceed the authority Congress granted under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Courts may now only stop enforcement for the parties in the case—not for everyone else. What Happened in the Case President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 in early 2025. It denies birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Multiple lawsuits followed. Three federal courts blocked the order nationwide. The Supreme Court disagreed. It sent the case back and told the lower courts to revise the injunctions to cover only the named plaintiffs. The Court did not decide whether the order itself violates the Constitution. It ruled only on how far a court’s injunction can reach. Why It Matters to Employers The ruling affects how quickly and widely federal courts can stop controversial policies, especially during fast-changing political cycles. Employers have often relied on national injunctions to pause new mandates on wages, workplace safety, pay transparency, and non-compete agreements. This decision limits that option. The Court said nothing about injunctions under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs agency rules. But the opinion raises doubts about whether even those can continue on a nationwide scale. Justice Kavanaugh suggested they might, but the Court left that question for another day. What This Means for You No nationwide protection unless you sue If your business is not part of the case, you likely cannot rely on someone else’s win. You must litigate directly to get relief. Rules may take effect in one state and not another A federal court in Texas may block a rule, while a court in New York upholds it. National companies may face conflicting rules and inconsistent enforcement. Trade groups cannot shield you Even if your industry association wins an injunction, it may apply only to their members or to the parties named in the lawsuit. Older rulings may now shrink Past national injunctions—on vaccine mandates, non-compete bans, overtime rules, or joint-employer standards—could be challenged or narrowed based on this ruling. More class actions are likely Some plaintiffs may now push for class certification to restore broader relief. Employers could face more complex litigation as a result. Next Steps for Employers Identify any current or past rules your business has relied on that are being blocked nationwide. Confirm whether you were covered by name or just assumed you were protected. Reassess your risk exposure for pending federal actions under OSHA, the EEOC, the DOL, or the NLRB. Monitor APA-based injunctions to see whether courts continue to grant broad relief under that statute. Consider joining strategic litigation early if new executive orders or agency rules would harm your operations. You cannot assume another company’s lawsuit will protect you. The Court narrowed that path. To block a federal mandate, you may now need to act alone—or join the fight directly. Michael P. Lewis is an attorney at The Royal Law Firm with experience advising clients through the litigation process. Michael helps employers resolve workplace challenges with focus, precision, and judgment. He counsels and defends businesses across Massachusetts and Connecticut, handling matters involving discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage and hour claims, restrictive covenants, and breach of contract. His practice includes litigation in state and federal courts and before administrative agencies. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

The Royal Law Firm recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!