Customer service
representative for trucking company is not a "transportation worker."
Therefore, he is bound by the company's arbitration agreement.
Lenz v. Yellow Transp.,
Inc., 431 F.3d 348 (8th Cir. December 16, 2005) - Troy Lenz worked as a
Customer Service Representative for Yellow Transportation for two months
before he was terminated. Yellow is a carrier of general commodities by
truck. Lenz had signed an arbitration agreement and the question presented
is whether he is a "transportation worker" so as to be exempt from the
Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), which would mean that he would
not be bound by
the arbitration agreement. While the FAA applies to employment contracts,
Section
1 of the FAA excludes from the Act's coverage "contracts of employment of
seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign
or interstate commerce." 9 U.S.C. Section 1. This exclusion
provision "is limited to transportation workers, defined, [. . .], as those
workers 'actually engaged in the movement of goods in interstate commerce.'"
In determining whether Lenz is a transportation worker, the Court applies
the following non-exclusive list of factors in determining whether an
employee is so closely related to interstate commerce that he or she fits
within the Section 1 exemption of the FAA: first, whether the employee works in
the transportation industry; second, whether the employee is directly
responsible for transporting the goods in interstate commerce; third,
whether the employee handles goods that travel interstate; fourth, whether
the employee supervises employees who are themselves transportation workers,
such as truck drivers; fifth, whether, like seamen or railroad employees,
the employee is within a class of employees for which special arbitration
already existed when Congress enacted the FAA; sixth, whether the vehicle
itself is vital to the commercial enterprise of the employer; seventh,
whether a strike by the employee would disrupt interstate commerce; and
eighth, the nexus that exists between the employee's job duties and the
vehicle the employee uses in carrying out his duties (i.e., a truck driver
whose only job is to deliver goods cannot perform his job without a truck).
The Court analyzes these factors and determines that Lenz is not a
transportation worker. Therefore, he is bound by the arbitration
agreement.
