Wilson v. Get It Now, LLC
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-01067
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 15
In Wilson v. Get It Now, LLC, Judge Tostrud granted the company's motion to compel arbitration, ruling that plaintiff Ryan Wilson failed to show he qualified for the Federal Arbitration Act's transportation-worker exemption.
Employees who have signed arbitration agreements with their employers and believe their work involves interstate commerce may be affected. Specifically, this opinion is relevant to district managers and regional retail managers who oversee stores selling goods across state lines and who might argue they are 'transportation workers' exempt from mandatory arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. The ruling makes clear that such workers must present evidence about the job duties of their entire class of workers — not just their own individual duties — and must show that interstate commerce activities are central, not occasional, to that class's role.
What happened
In Wilson v. Get It Now, LLC (No. 25-cv-1067), Ryan Wilson, a former district manager for Get It Now (a household-goods retailer operating in Minnesota and Wisconsin), sued his former employer in Minnesota state court, alleging he was fired in retaliation for reporting illegal activity and for seeking workers' compensation benefits. Get It Now removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), relying on an arbitration agreement Wilson had signed. Wilson did not dispute signing the agreement but argued he was exempt from it as a 'transportation worker' under a provision of the FAA that excludes certain workers engaged in interstate commerce.
The key legal question was whether Wilson belonged to a class of workers whose central job duties involved the interstate movement of goods — the standard required to qualify for the FAA's transportation-worker exemption. The court identified Wilson's class as workers who manage or oversee multiple household-goods retail store locations within a defined geographic territory. Wilson's evidence consisted solely of his own declaration describing his personal duties at Get It Now, including overseeing employees who delivered goods to Wisconsin and personally crossing state lines for quarterly meetings. The court found this evidence legally insufficient because Wilson failed to address the class of workers as a whole, failed to show that interstate commerce activities were central (rather than occasional) to the class's job description, and never disputed Get It Now's official job description, which made no mention of the interstate movement of goods.
Judge Tostrud granted Get It Now's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the lawsuit pending completion of arbitration. The court found that Wilson had not carried his burden of proving the transportation-worker exemption applied, both because he focused on his individual duties rather than those of his worker class generally, and because even his own testimony described interstate activities that appeared only occasional rather than central to the district-manager role. The case is now paused while arbitration proceeds.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. Get It Now, LLC · No. 0:25-cv-01067
- Eric Tostrud
- Aug. 11, 2025
Background
Ryan Wilson was a district manager for Get It Now, LLC, a company that sells and leases household goods and appliances — operating as "Get It Now" in Wisconsin and "Home Choice" in Minnesota. Wilson oversaw multiple retail store locations in Minnesota. He was terminated and subsequently sued Get It Now in Ramsey County District Court, asserting claims under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act and the retaliatory-discharge provision of the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act, alleging he was fired for reporting illegal company activity and for seeking workers' compensation benefits.
Get It Now removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on diversity jurisdiction grounds (the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000). Get It Now then moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16, pointing to an arbitration agreement Wilson had signed that broadly covered employment-related disputes and delegated to an arbitrator the authority to resolve any disputes about the agreement's interpretation or enforceability.
Legal Framework
Motion to Compel Standard
Because both parties submitted evidence outside the pleadings, the court treated Get It Now's motion to compel arbitration as a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 rather than a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Under summary judgment standards, the facts are construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (here, Wilson).
The FAA broadly favors arbitration. A written arbitration clause in a contract involving commerce is valid and enforceable under 9 U.S.C. § 2. However, § 1 of the FAA exempts from its coverage contracts of employment of "seamen," "railroad employees," and "any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." The Supreme Court has construed this last category to cover only "transportation workers" — that is, those who are actively engaged in moving goods across state or national borders. This exemption is narrow.
Who Bears the Burden
The party seeking to invoke the § 1 transportation-worker exemption bears the burden of proving it applies. Wilson, as the party opposing arbitration, had to demonstrate that he fell within the exemption.
Two-Part Test
The court applied the two-part test established in Southwestern Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022): 1. Define the relevant "class of workers" to which the plaintiff belongs (based on what the worker does, not what the employer does generally). 2. Determine whether that class of workers is "engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" — meaning the interstate movement of goods must be a central part of the class's job description, not merely occasional.
Analysis
Step One: Defining Wilson's Class of Workers
Wilson failed to address this question in his opposition brief and at oral argument offered only the circular answer that he was a "transportation worker." Nonetheless, the court reviewed the record and found sufficient evidence to define the class: workers who manage or oversee multiple household-goods retail store locations within a defined geographic territory. Both Wilson's own declaration and Get It Now's Senior Vice President of Retail Operations described Wilson as a district manager overseeing several Minnesota store locations, with duties including managing employees, staffing decisions, fleet management, expense control, marketing, and meeting with other district managers.
The court noted that cases do not provide explicit guidance on the level of specificity at which to define the class, but concluded that the class should incorporate the nature of the retail stores' business (household goods) without tying it to the specific employer (Get It Now).
Step Two: Whether That Class Is Engaged in Interstate Commerce
This is where Wilson's case failed most clearly. Wilson addressed the interstate-commerce question only from his own individual perspective rather than from the perspective of the class as a whole. His evidence consisted solely of his personal declaration describing his own duties at Get It Now — not evidence about the class of workers broadly.
Even accepting Wilson's declaration as probative of the class's job description, the court found it insufficient. Wilson's specific testimony addressed: - Overseeing employees who sold, transported, and delivered goods to Wisconsin residents; - Coordinating, scheduling, and approving interstate transactions; - Managing a delivery vehicle "fleet"; - Personally crossing state lines multiple times; - Participating in quarterly meetings with other district managers held in Wisconsin.
The court found these activities insufficient to show that interstate commerce was central to the district-manager class's job description for several reasons: - Wilson did not dispute Get It Now's official job description, which made no mention of the interstate movement of goods; - The described interstate activities appeared occasional rather than central; - Wilson's testimony did not provide specific information about how frequently or to what extent interstate activities occurred; - Accepting this evidence as sufficient would make it hard to distinguish countless retail workers who oversee interstate sales — an outcome at odds with the exemption's "narrow" scope as characterized by the Supreme Court; - Activities like merchandise deliveries, repossessions, investigations, and quarterly meetings across state lines were described in ways suggesting they were occasional, not central, to the role.
The court noted that the correct inquiry is whether the class is "actively engaged in the enterprise of moving goods across interstate lines" (quoting Wallace v. Grubhub Holdings, Inc., 970 F.3d 798, 802 (7th Cir. 2020)), which Wilson did not demonstrate.
Eighth Circuit's Lenz Factors
The court also applied the Eighth Circuit's non-exclusive eight-factor test from Lenz v. Yellow Transportation, Inc., 431 F.3d 348 (8th Cir. 2005), applied to workers claiming a close relationship to interstate commerce under §
- While noting uncertainty about whether this test survives more recent Supreme Court guidance in Bissonnette and Saxon, the court found Wilson failed to satisfy it:
- Wilson did not work in the transportation industry;
- Any direct responsibility for interstate transport was at most occasional;
- Handling of interstate goods was at most occasional;
- Wilson's testimony about supervising delivery employees was insufficiently specific to show he supervised "transportation workers" like truck drivers;
- Wilson did not belong to a class with special arbitration arrangements predating the FAA (as seamen and railroad employees had);
- A strike by Wilson would not obviously disrupt interstate commerce;
- No specific vehicle nexus was established from Wilson's testimony;
- Wilson mentioned a delivery fleet but provided no testimony about whether any vehicle was vital to Get It Now's commercial enterprise.
Cases Cited by Wilson Distinguished
Wilson relied on cases holding that transportation-worker status does not require personally crossing borders or having interstate activity as a primary duty, including cases about Amazon last-mile delivery drivers, coal mine workers, and ride-share drivers. The court found these inapposite: the fact-intensive nature of the inquiry means cases about delivery drivers or ride-share operators provide little analogy to a class of regional retail store managers.
Disposition
Get It Now's motion to compel arbitration was granted. The court also stayed the entire action pending the completion of arbitration, citing Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024), which holds that when a district court finds an arbitrable dispute and a party requests a stay, § 3 of the FAA requires the court to stay proceedings.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.