Watch the video, Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, to follow the story on harvard.edu.

According to the article, A legal victory for last-mile delivery drivers, on May 28, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its final decision on Flowers Foods v. Brock, finding that last-mile delivery drivers should not be limited to resolving disputes with their employers through binding arbitration. The decision officially recognizes the right of local transportation workers in the chain of delivery to bring lawsuits against their employers in court.

Harvard Professor of Labor and Industry Benjamin Sachs spoke with Harvard Law Today (HLT) in March 2026 to preview the case ahead of oral argument. Sachs, who recently wrote an article on the Flowers Foods v. Brock decision for OnLabor, also shared his verdict on the Court’s logic and the case’s impact on employment relations with HLT.

HLT: What is your immediate reaction to the Court’s decision?

Sachs: This decision is a complete win for Angelo Brock, the respondent in the case, and for the many workers who will now have their rights to sue in court restored. As we discussed prior to oral argument, Flowers Foods’ theory was that in order for a delivery driver to be engaged in interstate commerce for purposes of the FAA’s exemption clause, the driver must either cross state lines themselves or interact with vehicles that do. In the Court’s blunt phrasing, “That theory is incorrect.” This is a brief, straightforward and unanimous opinion completely rejecting the proposition that being engaged in interstate commerce requires crossing state lines or touching something that does.

HLT: Was there anything surprising about the Court’s reasoning?

Sachs: This is the fourth decision in seven years in which the Supreme Court has taken up a question concerning the FAA’s coverage of workers — cases in which workers are trying to preserve their rights to sue in court and avoid the trap of mandatory arbitration clauses. And in each of these four opinions, the Court has ruled unanimously in favor of the workers. Given the overall track record of this Court on questions concerning workers’ rights and labor rights, and on questions of mandatory arbitration, that is surprising. I happen to agree with the Court in each of these cases. My own view is that the FAA is best read as exempting essentially all employment contracts from its coverage. But for this Court, this expanding pro-worker corner of doctrine is an anomaly. 

HLT: What do you think will be the impact of the decision?

Sachs: The most immediate impact of the decision will be on delivery drivers who participate in interstate commerce flows but who themselves operate within state lines. That likely describes the vast majority of Amazon’s last-mile delivery drivers, whose trucks are becoming ubiquitous on city streets, and thousands more like them. The decision reopens the courthouse to these drivers, restoring to them the right to sue the companies they deliver for when their rights are violated.

There was a paragraph at the end of the opinion in which the Court noted that Flowers Foods had “hinted” at alternative theories as to why Brock was covered by the FAA. These theories were, first, that because Flowers and Brock contracted through a “distribution contract” rather than an employment contract, the exemption to the FAA couldn’t possibly apply. And second, Flowers Foods argued that Brock was not engaged in interstate commerce because he “orders, purchases, and takes title to [Flowers’] goods, before selling them to local stores.” These theories have been rejected by the Court before, but lower courts have seemed amenable to them. The Court did not endorse these theories or invite future litigation to test them, but it seems likely that employers will pursue them in future FAA exemption cases. Here, the Court simply found Flowers to have waived the arguments and concluded “whatever other limits §1 may or may not contain,” it is not limited by a requirement of crossing state lines or interacting with vehicles that do.

Discussion Questions

  1. Define “last-mile” deliverer.

    A last‑mile deliverer is the logistics provider responsible for completing the final leg of a delivery, transporting goods from a local hub or distribution center directly to the customer’s home or business. 

    This stage—described as the most complex and expensive part of the supply chain—requires navigating unpredictable traffic, short delivery routes, and customer‑specific requirements to ensure fast, accurate, and reliable service. Because it is the only “customer‑facing” part of the delivery process, last‑mile deliverers play a crucial role in customer satisfaction and brand reputation.

  2. Define arbitration.

    Arbitration is a form of alternative (i.e., not litigation) dispute resolution in which the parties present their arguments and evidence to a neutral third party, the arbitrator, who issues a decision outside the court system. It is typically faster, less formal, and more flexible than litigation, and is widely used in commercial-, employment-, and consumer-related disputes. 

    There are two forms of arbitration: (1) binding arbitration and (2) non-binding arbitration. Binding arbitration means the arbitrator’s decision is final and enforceable in court, with extremely limited grounds for appeal, so the parties must accept the outcome. In contrast, non‑binding arbitration results in an advisory decision issued by the arbitrator that the parties may reject, using it instead as a basis for negotiation or proceeding to litigation if they choose.

  3. Why is the Flowers Foods v. Brock case considered a “victory” for last-mile delivery drivers?

    The Flowers Foods v. Brock decision is a victory for last-mile delivery drivers because it preserves the right of drivers to litigate, rather than arbitrate, disputes with their employers. In short, because of this decision, last-mile delivery drivers can “have their day in court” if they so choose.