Some former Grubhub delivery drivers sued Grubhub alleging various wage and hours violations. They had all electronically signed arbitration agreements, so Grubhub moved to compel arbitration.

The big question in the case was whether they fell within the definition of "any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" who are exempt from arbitration under § 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

The trial court reasoned that they were exempt by virtue of their transportation and delivery of prepackaged food items, some of which were manufactured outside the state.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court disagreed, and held that the drivers are required to arbitrate rather than litigate their dispute. Archer v. Grubhub (Massachusetts 07/27/2022) [PDF].

The dispositive point was that these drivers were not "actually engaged in the movement of goods in interstate commerce." Although the drivers transported goods that may travel across several states before landing in a meal prepared by a local restaurant and delivered by a Grubhub driver, they did not fall within the residual clause because they were not connected to the act of moving those goods across state or national borders.

The court cited several cases from other courts that reached the same conclusion.

Grubhub drivers are unlike "last-mile drivers" (e.g., Amazon drivers) who are transporting goods that – from moment the goods entered "the flow of interstate commerce," – were always "destined for" the customers to whom the last-mile drivers made deliveries.