Delivery Drivers Compelled to Arbitrate

August 3, 2022

Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held in favor of Grubhub, in the matter of Archer v. Grubhub, Inc., by applying the narrow interpretation of “exempt workers” engaging in “interstate commerce” under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In 2017, Grubhub, Inc. electronically sent an arbitration agreement to all of its employees. The agreement contained language that the employee agreed to arbitrate claims brought against the company regarding retaliation, wage and compensation, and that the agreement was to be governed by the FAA. In 2019, Grubhub workers filed suit against the company alleging claims under the Wage Act, Tips Act, and Minimum Wage Act, as well as a retaliation claim. In 2020, the company filed its motion to dismiss the action and a motion to compel arbitration enforceable under the FAA. The trial court denied the motions and held that because the nature of employment consisted of transporting and delivering goods that may have originated outside of Massachusetts, the workers fell within the exemption of being involved in interstate commerce under the FAA. Grubhub appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court.


At the Supreme Court, Grubhub argued the narrow exemption under the FAA only applies to those “workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” namely, “contracts of employment of seamen,” or “railroad employees.” The court looked to the language in the statute and defined transportation workers as those “actually engaged in the movement of goods in interstate commerce.” The Grubhub workers were compared to those involved in the trucking industry whose main duty was to transport goods across state lines. In further comparison, similar cases have been brought in the Seventh Circuit, where Grubhub workers were considered transportation workers but not held to have engaged in interstate commerce. The Massachusetts Supreme Court relied on strict statutory interpretation and precedent in its conclusion that the Grubhub workers were not connected to moving those goods across state or national borders.


We’re in New England. What about those drivers, cities, or towns that fall on the state lines? The Massachusetts Supreme Court began its interpretation of the statute by looking to the plain language, which states it applies to “a class of workers.” It held that based on this language, the statute applied to the class itself and not an individual employee. Thus, if the class is engaged in interstate commerce, then so is the individual, but not the other way around. Overall, because the delivery drivers delivered food to and from local restaurants, eateries and convenience stores, it was not enough to find the “class” was engaging in interstate commerce. 


This decision upholds the purpose of the FAA and the judicial backing of enforcing arbitration agreements. In this new era of delivery and ease on consumers, Grubhub delivery drivers, and similar delivery services of the like, such as Uber and DoorDash, will be compelled to arbitrate their claims.

 

If you have questions about this topic, or any other general employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

The Royal Law Firm recently welcomed Zeno Temple to its team!

By The Royal Law Firm • September 15, 2025
Welcome Zeno!

Can I Fire Someone for That? Common Myths That Get Employers Sued

By The Royal Law Firm • August 19, 2025
Employers regularly wonder: “Can I fire someone for that?” You might assume the answer is simple, especially in an at-will state like Massachusetts. But the reality is more complex. Missteps can land your business in court. Here’s how to avoid them and keep your company focused on growth, not litigation. Myth: “At-Will Means Any Reason Goes” At-will employment allows termination without contractual cause. Yet anti-discrimination laws and retaliation protections still apply. Even a valid reason, like poor performance, becomes risky if the employee recently complained about harassment, requested an accommodation, or reported a safety issue. Terminating soon after a complaint invites legal trouble. For example, consider firing Sarah for repeated tardiness. But what if she reported sexual harassment a few weeks earlier? Timing alone can create exposure. Document performance issues as they arise. Also, check if the employee recently returned from Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) or Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML). A Springfield auto repair shop faced a claim after firing a worker the day after he returned from PFML to care for his newborn. The company blamed tardiness, but the timing triggered months of legal headaches. Myth: “No Documentation Needed” Some employers assume that no paperwork is necessary under at-will rules. That approach creates unnecessary risk. Without records, even lawful firings appear questionable. Weak evidence damages credibility. Imagine Tom, a low performer who never received formal feedback. If you fire him after years of positive reviews, expect scrutiny. Always provide timely written warnings and accurate performance evaluations. Keep emails, attendance records, and coaching notes. Would your records persuade a jury that the termination was justified? Myth: “We Treated Everyone Fairly” Fair treatment requires consistency. If one employee is fired and another is only warned for the same violation, questions follow. Consider two salespeople, Mike and Jose, both caught inflating sales numbers. Mike receives a warning. Jose gets fired. If Jose claims racial bias, inconsistent discipline strengthens his argument. Review prior disciplinary decisions. Can you show a clear record of equal treatment? Myth: “We Can Share the Reason Widely” Managers sometimes explain a termination too broadly, believing transparency protects the company. In reality, public disclosure creates legal risk. An employee fired for theft sued his employer after leadership announced it to the entire staff. Even truthful statements, shared excessively or with ill will, can spark defamation claims. A local example: a Chicopee retailer emailed all employees naming a worker fired for alleged cash shortages. That email became Exhibit A in court. Limit disclosure to those who truly need to know. Avoiding Retaliation Claims Retaliation is the most common EEOC claim. Firing someone after they complain about discrimination, request leave, or raise pay concerns often leads to lawsuits. Subtle actions can count too—cutting hours, assigning undesirable shifts, or excluding them from meetings. Did Lisa report a wage issue last week? If she now gets the worst shifts, her attorney will call it punishment. Train managers to pause and ask: “Does this look like payback?” In one Springfield restaurant, a server who complained about tips was fired days later for “attitude.” The MCAD viewed the timing as retaliation, and the case settled quickly. Managing the Termination Meeting Professionally How you fire someone matters. Keep the meeting short and calm. Speak plainly. Avoid debate. Bring a neutral witness, usually HR. Disable system access and collect company property immediately. For remote workers, coordinate IT to end access during the call. Have you prepared your team to stay composed when an employee gets angry or upset? A concise, professional exit reduces emotion and litigation risk. Reducing Risks Before They Occur You can prevent most legal problems with proactive steps. Train managers to document consistently. Encourage employees to raise concerns early, and respond appropriately when they do. Also, follow Massachusetts requirements: final wages and accrued vacation must be paid promptly, sometimes the same day. Missing or delaying a payment can trigger penalties. Review whether your managers apply standards uniformly. Track disciplinary trends by department or supervisor. In one Holyoke warehouse, inconsistent discipline across shifts led to multiple claims that could have been avoided with routine audits. Quick Pre-Termination Checklist Document the issue in writing. Confirm whether the employee recently exercised protected rights (complaint, FMLA, PFML, workers’ comp). Ensure similar cases were handled consistently. Complete a fair investigation and allow the employee to respond. Prepare final pay and unused vacation in compliance with Massachusetts law. Bottom Line Employee terminations happen. Legal trouble does not have to. Careful documentation, consistent actions, and thoughtful communication protect your business. Before acting, stop and ask: have we done this right? Taking these steps helps you confidently answer, “Can I fire someone for that?” That answer should never rest on guesswork. Michael P. Lewis, is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP , a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. Michael P. Lewis wrote this article which was featured in BusinessWest. Click here to visit their website.