Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC

Docket: 23-51

Opinion Date: April 12, 2024

Judge: John G. Roberts, Jr.

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Labor & Employment Law, Transportation Law

Neal Bissonnette and Tyler Wojnarowski, distributors for Flowers Foods, Inc., a major producer and marketer of baked goods, sued the company for alleged violations of state and federal wage laws. Flowers Foods moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The key issue was whether the exemption from coverage under the FAA for any "class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" is limited to workers whose employers are in the transportation industry.

The District Court dismissed the case in favor of arbitration, stating that for Bissonnette and Wojnarowski to be exempt from the FAA, they must be "transportation workers." The court concluded that their broader scope of responsibility under the Distributor Agreements belied the claim that they were primarily truck drivers. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision on the alternative ground that Bissonnette and Wojnarowski "are in the bakery industry." According to the Second Circuit, §1 of the FAA exempts only "workers involved in the transportation industries."

The Supreme Court of the United States disagreed with the Second Circuit's interpretation. The Court held that a transportation worker does not need to work for a company in the transportation industry to be exempt under §1 of the FAA. The Court emphasized that the relevant question is what the worker does for the employer, not what the employer does generally. The Court vacated the judgment of the Second Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Court did not express an opinion on any alternative grounds in favor of arbitration raised below.

Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L. P.

Docket: 22-1165

Opinion Date: April 12, 2024

Judge: Sonia Sotomayor

Areas of Law: Business Law, Securities Law

The case revolves around Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation and its subsidiary's business of storing liquid commodities, including No. 6 fuel oil. In 2016, the United Nations' International Maritime Organization adopted a regulation, IMO 2020, which capped the sulfur content of fuel oil used in shipping at 0.5% by 2020. No. 6 fuel oil typically has a sulfur content closer to 3%. Macquarie did not discuss IMO 2020 in its public offering documents. In 2018, Macquarie announced a drop in the amount of storage capacity contracted for use by its subsidiary's customers, partly due to the decline in the No. 6 fuel oil market, leading to a 41% fall in Macquarie's stock price.

Moab Partners, L.P. sued Macquarie and various officer defendants, alleging a violation of §10(b) and Rule 10b–5. Moab argued that Macquarie's public statements were misleading as it concealed the impact of IMO 2020 on its subsidiary's business. The District Court dismissed Moab's complaint, but the Second Circuit reversed the decision, stating that Macquarie had a duty to disclose under Item 303 and that its violation could sustain Moab’s §10(b) and Rule 10b–5 claim.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that the failure to disclose information required by Item 303 cannot support a private action under Rule 10b–5(b) if the failure does not render any "statements made" misleading. The Court clarified that Rule 10b–5(b) does not proscribe pure omissions, but only covers half-truths. The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Sheetz v. El Dorado County

Docket: 22-1074

Opinion Date: April 12, 2024

Judge: Amy Coney Barrett

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

George Sheetz sought to build a small, prefabricated home on his residential parcel of land in El Dorado County, California. However, to obtain a permit, he was required to pay a substantial fee to mitigate local traffic congestion. Sheetz challenged this fee as an unlawful “exaction” of money under the Takings Clause, arguing that the fee amount should be necessary to offset traffic congestion attributable to his specific development. The County’s predetermined fee schedule, Sheetz argued, failed to meet that requirement.

The trial court rejected Sheetz’s claim and the California Court of Appeal affirmed. The Court of Appeal asserted that the Nollan/Dolan test, which requires permit conditions to have an “essential nexus” to the government’s land-use interest and “rough proportionality” to the development’s impact on the land-use interest, applies only to permit conditions imposed “on an individual and discretionary basis.” Fees imposed on “a broad class of property owners through legislative action,” it said, need not satisfy that test. The California Supreme Court denied review.

The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgment of the California Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions. The Court found no basis in constitutional text, history, or precedent for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators. The Court did not address the parties’ other disputes over the validity of the traffic impact fee, including whether a permit condition imposed on a class of properties must be tailored with the same degree of specificity as a permit condition that targets a particular development. The case was remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.