Quick Hits
- In Joyner v. Frontier Airlines, the Tenth Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling that customer service agents at a Denver airport were transportation workers exempt from federal arbitration law.
- The Tenth Circuit found the lower court had improperly relied on the work the named plaintiffs had actually performed, rather than what a typical class member did.
- The case hinged on whether the employees regularly handled passengers’ bags and thus took part in interstate commerce.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), mandatory arbitration agreements in employment contracts are enforceable, but the statute exempts from its coverage contracts of transportation workers involved in moving goods across state or national borders.
In 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that airline cargo loaders were transportation workers and thus exempt from the FAA because they loaded and unloaded baggage that crossed state lines. On May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court held that workers who locally deliver goods that originate from other states may qualify for the FAA exemption, even if they do not personally cross state lines or interact with vehicles that do.
Background
Menzies Aviation provides ground, fuel, and air cargo support services, including ticketing, check-in, and boarding, for Frontier Airlines at Denver International Airport. In May 2024, a group of ticketing and gate agents sued Menzies and Frontier under Colorado’s wage-and-hour laws, alleging that the companies improperly deducted time for unpaid lunch breaks the employees never received, forced employees to work through mandatory rest breaks, failed to pay overtime wages, and withheld earned sales commissions.
The companies moved to compel arbitration, since all the plaintiffs had signed arbitration agreements. The employees argued they were transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce and thus exempt from the FAA because they sometimes handled passengers’ luggage. However, the companies argued that the plaintiffs were not engaged in interstate commerce because they could do their jobs without directly handling baggage.
On May 27, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding the employees had furnished credible evidence that they routinely handled baggage. It did not take into account testimony from an employee who trained customer service agents and testified that they did not regularly lift luggage. The companies appealed.
The Tenth Circuit’s Ruling
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit explained that, in cases like this one, courts must first define the relevant class of workers in a class action, then determine whether that class is engaged in interstate commerce. It concluded the lower court was wrong to classify the plaintiffs as transportation workers by focusing exclusively on the work the three named plaintiffs performed, rather than on what the entire class typically did. Instead, courts considering class actions “must focus on the work performed by a typical member of the class, not on the work performed by any particular employee,” the Tenth Circuit noted.
The court concluded it could not address the other arguments in the appeal. “A conclusion that the district court erred in defining the working attributes of the relevant class renders moot all the district court’s subsequent findings and conclusions,” the court stated.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s jurisdiction encompasses Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.
Key Takeaways
The determination of an FAA exemption is very fact-specific and dependent on job duties related to interstate commerce. This case turned on whether typical class members routinely lifted luggage, not on what the individual plaintiffs did.
When attempting to compel arbitration in class actions, employers in the Tenth Circuit may wish to consider what the class of employees typically does, rather than what a specific employee does in the course of a workday. Individual variance from the norm can affect a court’s analysis.
Ogletree Deakins’ Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, Class Action, Colorado, Trucking and Logistics, and Wage and Hour blogs as additional information becomes available.
Eric M. Fox is co-chair of Ogletree Deakins’ Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Practice Group and a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ San Diego office.
Christopher C. Murray is co-chair of Ogletree Deakins’ Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Practice Group and a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Indianapolis office.
This article was co-authored by Leah J. Shepherd, who is a writer in Ogletree Deakins’ Washington, D.C., office.
Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts
