The First Circuit Court of Appeals has followed up on its recent jurisprudence outlining the standards for the Federal Arbitration Act’s “transportation worker exception,” as we previously posted, by applying its recently delineated standards to hold that individuals who purportedly spent at least 50 hours a week driving goods within a single state were within the scope of the exception.
Margarito Canales and Benjamin Bardzik contracted with a subsidiary of Flowers Foods Inc. Under that contract, Canales and Bardzik owned the rights to three routes in Massachusetts along which they delivered baked goods to stores.
Canales and Bardzik claimed that they were improperly classified as independent contractors and thereby wrongly denied wages and overtime. Flowers Foods and its subsidiaries sought to compel arbitration under the FAA in response to Canales’ and Bardzik’s claims. The district court held that Canales and Bardzik were within the transportation worker exception and thus declined to compel arbitration. Flowers Foods appealed.
The First Circuit affirmed. It rejected the arguments that (1) Canales and Bardzik could not invoke the exception because they were not in the transportation industry and (2) the facts established that Canales and Bardzik were business owners. The court concluded that both arguments were precluded by its recent decision in Fraga v. Premium Retail Services Inc., which noted that the inquiry for determining whether the exception applies is focused on what the worker does, not in which industry the worker is engaged, and recognized that workers who frequently engage in transportation activities can fall within the scope of the exception even if they perform other responsibilities. In this case, the record established that Canales and Bardzik spent a minimum of 50 hours per week driving their delivery routes to deliver goods. They were therefore within the scope of the exception and arbitration could not be compelled under the FAA.
Canales v. CK Sales Co., No. 22-1268 (1st Cir. May 5, 2023).
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.
Perspectives on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice.
Recent Posts
Editorial Contacts
Shareholder
Shareholder
Of Counsel
Shareholder
Shareholder
