RIVERA

v.

RYNO TRUCKING, INC.

This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant Ryno Trucking, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action (Doc. # 10), filed on September 28, 2021. Plaintiff Alex Rivera responded on October 18, 2021, and Ryno Trucking replied on October 25, 2021. (Doc. ## 18, 23). As stated below, the Motion is denied.

I. Background

According to the amended complaint, Ryno Trucking is a freight transportation company, and it employed Rivera as a truck driver from July 2019 until July 2020. (Doc. # 5 at ¶¶ 4, 14). Rivera brings claims for violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act. (Id. at ¶¶ 25-40). As part of his employment with Ryno Trucking, Rivera signed an Arbitration Agreement that states in pertinent part:

2. Any dispute or claim of any kind or nature between you and [employer] arising out of, related to, or in connection with any aspect of your employment or its termination . . . will be settled by final and binding arbitration conducted by a single, neutral arbitrator. . . .

10. If a party files a lawsuit in court to resolve claims subject to arbitration, the parties agree that the court shall dismiss the lawsuit and require that the claims be resolved through arbitration as provided herein.

. . .

14. The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that this Agreement involves interstate commerce and the interpretation and enforcement of the arbitration provisions herein will be governed by the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., to the exclusion of any different or inconsistent state or local law, ordinance or judicial rule.

(Doc. # 10-1). Now, Ryno Trucking seeks to compel arbitration of Rivera’s claims. (Doc. # 10). The Motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for review. (Doc. ## 18, 23).

II. Legal Standard

In enacting the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), Congress set arbitration agreements on equal footing with all other contracts. 9 U.S.C. § 2. Under the FAA, pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate “evidencing a transaction involving commerce” are “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” Id. This case, however, concerns one of the FAA’s exceptions. Section¹ of the FAA states that “nothing herein . . . shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 1. District courts must decide for themselves whether Section¹’s exclusion applies before ordering arbitration. New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532, 537 (2019). Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, this “transportation worker exemption” excludes from the reach of the FAA those employees who are in a class of workers (1) employed in the transportation industry; and (2) that, in the main, actually engages in interstate commerce. Hamrick v. Partsfleet, LLC,¹ F. 4th 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 2021).

III. Analysis

Here, the parties agree that Rivera, as a driver for an interstate trucking company, falls within the transportation worker exemption and, thus, his claims are exempt from arbitration under the FAA. (Doc. # 18 at 1-2; Doc. # 23 at 1- 2). The parties dispute, however, whether the Arbitration Agreement may be enforced under state law or pursuant to this

Court’s inherent powers. (Doc. # 18 at 12-14; Doc. # 23 at 3- 7). As Ryno Trucking points out, the Courts in New Prime and Hamrick avoided these questions. See New Prime, 139 S. Ct. at 543 (declining to address argument that arbitration should be ordered under a court’s inherent authority because the lower courts did not address it); Hamrick,¹ F. 4th at 1353-54 (declining to address district court’s state-court ruling for lack of jurisdiction). This Court, likewise, need not address that issue because the parties’ Arbitration Agreement expressly provides that: The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that this Agreement involves interstate commerce and the interpretation and enforcement of the arbitration provisions herein will be governed by the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., to the exclusion of any different or inconsistent state or local law, ordinance or judicial rule.

(Doc. # 10-1 at ¶ 14) (emphasis added). Although federal policy favors arbitration, “courts must place arbitration agreements on an equal footing with other contracts and enforce them according to their terms.” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011) (citations omitted). And courts strive to give effect to all provisions of a contract. See Sugar Cane Growers Coop. of Fla. v. Pinnock, 735 So. 2d 530, 534 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (stating that contracts should be reviewed as a whole and all language given effect; where the language is clear and unambiguous, the contract should be enforced as it reads). Here, the Agreement’s language could not be more clear – enforcement of the Agreement is governed by the FAA and expressly excludes any inconsistent state law. The Florida arbitration code¹ does not include a transportation worker exemption, rendering it “inconsistent” with the FAA. See Martins v. Flowers Foods, Inc., 463 F. Supp. 3d 1290, 1298- 99 (M.D. Fla. 2020) (interpreting a similar clause – that the

Florida law to this Arbitration Agreement. See Id. at 1299 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Ryno Trucking argues that the Arbitration Agreement “evidences a clear intention that all claims arising out Plaintiff’s employment with Ryno be submitted to arbitration. This clear intention should be given effect.” (Doc. # 23 at

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE