Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC.
In Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, the Supreme Court addressed whether a transportation worker must work in the transportation industry to be exempt under § 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Court vacated the Second Circuit's decision, which had compelled arbitration based on the petitioners' employment in the bakery industry, not considering them as transportation workers. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC.
The Court held that a transportation worker need not work in the transportation industry to be exempt from coverage under § 1 of the FAA.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Commerce Clause is relevant to Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC
The case revolves around the interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption for workers engaged in interstate commerce.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The question presented is whether the exemption from coverage under that Act for any 'class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce' is limited to workers whose employers are in the transportation industry.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC that support the summary and concepts above.
A transportation worker need not work in the transportation industry to be exempt from coverage under § 1 of the FAA.
The Second Circuit accordingly erred in compelling arbitration on the basis that petitioners work in the bakery industry.
