Case: 16-17717 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17717
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-00341-RWS
BRUCE GATES,
on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
TF FINAL MILE, LLC,
a Foreign Limited Liability Company,
formerly known as Dynamex Operations East, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(August 15, 2019)
Case: 16-17717 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 2 of 3
Before JORDAN, GRANT, and SILER, ∗ Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The plaintiffs—a group of same-day delivery drivers—sued their former
employer—TF Final Mile, LLC—under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §
201 et seq., alleging unpaid minimum and overtime wages. They appeal the
district court’s order dismissing their complaint and compelling arbitration.
TF Final Mile moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration
pursuant to the parties’ Independent Contractor Agreement for Transportation
Services, which contained an arbitration provision. In its motion, TF Final Mile
argued that the plaintiffs’ claims should be arbitrated under the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. The plaintiffs responded that § 1 of the FAA,
which provides a narrow exemption to arbitration, applies to the Independent
Contractor Agreement. Specifically, 9 U.S.C. § 1 “exempts from [FAA] coverage
any arbitration agreement contained in ‘contracts of employment of . . . workers
engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.’” Hill v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.,
398 F.3d
1286, 1288 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting § 1).
In addressing the exemption, the district court considered, among other
things, whether the Independent Contractor Agreement was a “contract[ ] of
employment” under § 1. The determining factor, according to the district court,
∗The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
2
Case: 16-17717 Date Filed: 08/15/2019 Page: 3 of 3
was whether the plaintiffs “were independent contractors or Defendant’s
employees[.]” D.E. 32 at 7 (emphasis added). Because it concluded that the
plaintiffs were independent contractors, the district court ruled that § 1 did not
apply. See
id. at 9. In other words, the district court believed that an independent
contractor agreement is not a contract of employment under § 1. Given an
intervening Supreme Court decision, that was error.
After the district court entered its order, the Supreme Court held in New
Prime Inc. v. Oliveira,
139 S. Ct. 532, 539–44 (2019), that § 1 applies to employer-
employee agreements as well as independent-contractor agreements because, at the
time Congress passed the FAA, “contracts of employment” included independent
contractor agreements. Under the Court’s holding in New Prime, the district court
erred by treating § 1’s application as contingent upon “whether Plaintiffs were
independent contractors or [ ] employees.” D.E. 32 at 7.
For these reasons, we reverse the district court’s order of dismissal and
remand for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in New
Prime,
139 S. Ct. at 539–44.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
3
