Green, et al. v. SuperShuttle Int'l, et al., No. 10-3310 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseAppellants, current and former shuttle bus drivers at the Minneapolis-St.Paul International Airport, brought suit against appellees in Minnesota state court alleging misclassifications of its drivers as franchisees rather than employees. At issue was whether the district court erred in granting the motion to compel arbitration, erred in enforcing the class action waiver clauses in the drivers' contracts, and erred in dismissing the federal action instead of staying it pending arbitration. The court held that the district court did not err in granting the motion to compel arbitration where appellants agreed to have an arbitrator determine threshold questions of arbitrability and therefore, appellants agreed to have the arbitrator decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1, transportation worker exemption applied. The court also held that AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion foreclosed appellants' claim that the district court erred in concluding the class action waivers were enforceable where the Supreme Court recently held that the FAA preempted a state-law-based challenge to the enforceability of class action waivers. The court held that, under the circumstances, the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the action rather than staying it pending completion of the arbitration.
Court Description: Civil case - Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Green v. SuperShuttle Int'l, Inc., No. 10-1564 (8th Cir. May 26, 2010). District court did not err in compelling arbitration as the arbitrator has the authority to decide jurisdictional issues, such as plaintiff's claim that the Federal Aviation Act transportation worker exemption applies in the case; Federal Aviation Act preempts Minnesota state law governing class action waivers; district court abused its discretion, however, by dismissing the action, rather than staying it pending completion of arbitration. Judge Shepherd, concurring in part and concurring in the result.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.