A Chicago federal appeals court has bagged an action brought by a group of Grubhub meal delivery drivers can't sue the company over overtime pay, because the food delivery drivers aren't in the same legal category as truck drivers and railroad workers.
The Aug. 4 ruling was authored by Circuit Judge Amy Barrett, with agreement from fellow circuit judges William Bauer and Michael Kanne, of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The ruling favored Grubhub in two actions brought by a group of Grubhub drivers from around the country, including Chicago and New York. The drivers alleged Grubhub was obliged to pay overtime, but has refused. Grubhub, which is based in Chicago, is a nationwide online meal ordering and delivery service.
Grubhub argued the drivers' suits must be dismissed, because drivers are independent contractors, who are not entitled to overtime under the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act. At any rate, the drivers also signed agreements with the company to arbitrate any disputes, Grubhub asserted.
The drivers countered they could sue, because the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act demands arbitration for all workers, except railroad employees, sailors and other workers "engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." The drivers contended they should be included in that group, because the food they deliver includes ingredients and products that come from many different U.S. states and other countries.
Grubhub said they should not.
Judge Barrett was not persuaded by the drivers' contention.
"Rather than focusing on whether they belong to a class of workers actively engaged in the movement of goods across interstate lines, the plaintiffs stress that they carry goods that have moved across state and even national lines," Barrett said.
The judge added: "Plaintiffs had to demonstrate that the interstate movement of goods is a central part of the job description of the class of workers to which they belong. They did not even try to do that."
As an example illustrating the drivers' faulty argument, Barrett said a bag of potato chips may be packaged in another state and then travel across several states, before ending up in a meal delivered by Grubhub. Barrett said the drivers erroneously hold that the issue is not what they do with food, but where the food originated.
Barrett said the drivers are in the wrong, because they "must be connected not simply to the goods," as they maintain, "but to the act of moving those goods across state or national borders."
"Plaintiffs’ interpretation would sweep in numerous categories of workers whose occupations have nothing to do with interstate transport — for example, dry cleaners who deliver pressed shirts manufactured in Taiwan and ice cream truck drivers selling treats made with milk from an out-of-state dairy," Barrett wrote.
Barrett affirmed district court rulings that dismissed the two suits.
Plaintiffs are represented by Lichten & Liss-Riordan, of Boston, and the Chicago firm of Stephan Zouras LLP.
Grubhub is defended by Littler Mendelson, P.C., which is headquartered in San Francisco.