Champion v. Amazon.com LLC

Background

Yolanda Champion was formerly employed by NEA Delivery, LLC and was assigned by NEA to work as a delivery driver for Amazon. Champion alleged that NEA and Amazon jointly employed her and that she was not provided meal and rest periods or proper wages.

Amazon moved under the Federal Arbitration Act to compel arbitration based on a written agreement between NEA and Champion. The agreement required arbitration of claims arising from the employment context. On June 21, 2019, the court granted Amazon’s motion and stayed the action, to the extent it was asserted against Amazon, pending arbitration.

In that earlier ruling, the court found that Champion entered the agreement, that it was not unconscionable, that Amazon could rely on the agreement even though it was not a party to it, and that the Federal Arbitration Act’s statutory exemption for certain transportation workers did not apply. Champion’s motion in this opinion sought certification for an interlocutory appeal of only the exemption issue.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district court may certify an order for interlocutory appeal when the order involves a controlling legal question, there is substantial ground for disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal may materially advance the litigation’s ultimate termination.

The Federal Arbitration Act generally permits enforcement of written arbitration provisions in contracts involving commerce. Section 1 exempts contracts of employment for seamen, railroad employees, and other classes of workers engaged in interstate commerce. Courts have interpreted the last category to cover transportation workers.

Court’s analysis

The court determined that the exemption issue involved a controlling question of law. The court had treated Champion’s agreement with NEA as the relevant contract because it was the only contract containing a written arbitration provision. Champion had not argued or provided evidence that NEA was in the interstate transportation industry. The court also had found, without dispute from Champion, that Amazon could invoke the agreement because Champion’s claims against Amazon and NEA were based on the same facts and were inherently inseparable from the claims against NEA.

The court nevertheless recognized a substantial difference of opinion concerning whether Amazon’s business could be considered for purposes of the exemption, even though Champion asserted that any contract between her and Amazon was implied and contained no arbitration agreement. The court had found that the exemption did not apply because Amazon was not engaged in the transportation industry. It noted that another district court had reached a different conclusion in a case involving Amazon, describing Amazon as similar to UPS and FedEx. This court instead found that Amazon was primarily engaged in selling merchandise and provided delivery in connection with that business.

The court also found that an immediate appeal could materially advance the litigation because an appeal could resolve the issue before the parties completed arbitration. It concluded that all three requirements of § 1292(b) were met.

Disposition

The court granted Champion’s motion. By a separate order filed at the same time, it amended the earlier order compelling arbitration to reflect the certification finding. This opinion certified the specified legal issue for interlocutory appeal; it did not state that an appellate court had accepted or decided the appeal.

Judge

Maxine Chesney, United States District Judge, issued the order.