This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D is an interstate trucking company and P works as one of its drivers. P isn’t an employee. The parties’ contracts label him an independent contractor. The contract also requires that any disputes arising out of the parties’ relationship should be resolved by an arbitrator-even disputes over the scope of the arbitrator’s authority. P instituted this class action against D contending that D denies its drivers lawful wages. P alleged that D treats its drivers as employees and fails to pay the statutorily due minimum wage. D asked the court to invoke its statutory authority under the FAA and compel arbitration according to the terms found in the parties’ agreements. P claimed in part that the Act doesn’t always authorize a court to enter an order compelling it. In particular, §1 carves out from the Act’s coverage “contracts of employment of . . . workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” P also argued that it doesn't matter whether you view him as an employee or independent contractor as a “contract of employment of . . . [a] worker engaged in . . . interstate commerce.” D claims that any question about §1’s application belonged to the arbitrator alone to resolve. Alternatively and assuming a court could address the question, D contends that the term “contracts of employment” refers only to contracts that establish an employer-employee relationship and not an independent contractor. The district court and the First Circuit agreed with P. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.