Flowers Foods Lawsuit: Brock Ruling and Arbitration Exemption

The Flowers Foods lawsuit ended at the Supreme Court on May 28, 2026, with a unanimous ruling that a delivery driver who never leaves his home state can still escape a forced-arbitration clause under the Federal Arbitration Act. The decision cleared the way for Angelo Brock, a Colorado distributor for Flowers Foods, to pursue wage and misclassification claims against the baked-goods company in federal court instead of behind closed doors in private arbitration.¹

What the Supreme Court Decided

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for a unanimous Court, held that “a worker who transports goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey can qualify for §1’s exemption without crossing state lines or interacting with vehicles that do.”¹

Flowers Foods had asked the Court to adopt what the opinion called a “cross-or-tag” rule: a driver would only qualify for the FAA’s transportation-worker exemption if he personally crossed a state border or loaded and unloaded a vehicle that did. The Court rejected that rule as unsupported by the statute’s text.

Gorsuch reasoned that “interstate commerce” covers the continuous movement of goods between states, and that intrastate legs of that movement are part of it. He drew on the 1871 decision in The Daniel Ball and on how an ordinary person would have understood the phrase when Congress passed the FAA in 1925, citing the era’s Cyclopedic Law Dictionary for the view that “interstate commerce” included the local leg of a “continuous carriage” beginning in another state.¹²

The Court kept a limit in place. To qualify for the exemption, a worker still has to play a “direct,” “necessary,” and “active” role in moving goods across borders. What the ruling changed is that physically crossing a state line is no longer the only way to meet that standard.³

Who Angelo Brock Is and What He Was Fighting About

Angelo Brock signed a distributor agreement with Flowers Baking Co. of Denver, LLC in 2016 and operated his business as Brock, Inc. He picked up baked goods at a warehouse in Colorado and delivered them to retail stores entirely within Colorado, using his own truck. Flowers classified him and its other distributors as independent contractors, not employees.⁴⁵

In 2022, Brock filed a putative class and collective action alleging that Flowers systematically misclassified its distributors and underpaid them in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Colorado labor law. Flowers moved to compel arbitration under the mandatory arbitration clause in his distributor agreement. Whether that clause could be enforced became the whole case.⁴

The federal district court in Colorado denied the motion, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed on November 12, 2024, reasoning that the baked goods Brock delivered were produced out of state and that his deliveries were the final leg of a continuous interstate journey.⁵ Flowers petitioned the Supreme Court in February 2025.⁶

Why the Arbitration Exemption Mattered

Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act generally requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements. But it exempts “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” A worker who falls inside that exemption cannot be forced into private arbitration by a clause in his contract.¹

For distributors like Brock, that distinction controls where the case is heard, whether it can proceed as a class action, and how much of it stays public. The Supreme Court’s ruling means the arbitration clause in Brock’s agreement cannot be used to shut down his lawsuit.

What the Court Did Not Decide

Flowers Foods had raised two other arguments the Supreme Court declined to address. The first was that Brock’s distributor agreement was technically with his corporation, Brock, Inc., rather than with him personally. The second was that Brock took title to the baked goods before reselling them, which the company argued broke the chain of interstate commerce.¹

The Court noted that Flowers had “ventured all upon one cast” by pressing only the cross-or-tag rule and had not asked the Court to decide the significance of those other factors. Both questions remain open and could return in later cases.

What the Ruling Means for Delivery Workers and the Companies That Hire Them

The practical effect is that mandatory arbitration clauses may be unenforceable against last-mile drivers who handle goods that started somewhere else. Any business relying on local drivers to complete the final leg of an interstate supply chain now has to expect that its arbitration agreements may not hold up when those workers sue.³

Amazon, which filed a brief supporting Flowers Foods, had warned the Court that applying the exemption to last-mile drivers would undermine arbitration agreements across the delivery industry. Amazon’s brief argued that the exemption should apply only to workers who “actively and directly engage in the transportation of goods across national or state borders.”⁷ The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a similar brief.⁸ The Court ruled the other way.

How This Fits With Recent Arbitration Rulings

Brock is the fourth recent Supreme Court decision narrowing when companies can force transportation workers into arbitration. In New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira (2019), the Court held that the exemption covers independent contractors, not just employees.⁹ In Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon (2022), it ruled that an airline ramp supervisor who loaded cargo without leaving the state qualified.¹⁰

The most direct precursor was Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC (2024), which also involved Flowers Foods. Two distributors for LePage, a Flowers subsidiary, argued they were exempt from arbitration. The Second Circuit had denied their claim on the theory that the exemption only reached workers in the “transportation industry,” and a bakery company did not qualify. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that the industry of the employer does not matter. But it sent the case back without deciding whether those particular distributors were “engaged in interstate commerce.”¹¹ Brock answered the question Bissonnette left open.

Flowers Foods’ History of Distributor Lawsuits

The Brock case is one chapter in a long-running fight over how Flowers Foods classifies its delivery workforce. The company has faced more than 20 lawsuits from over 150 plaintiffs challenging its independent-contractor model, with class actions filed in several states alleging that distributors are misclassified and denied overtime, expense reimbursements, and meal and rest breaks.¹²

In 2016, Flowers agreed to a $9 million settlement to resolve a class action in Charlotte, North Carolina, covering 270 distributor territories. A separate case involving a Flowers subsidiary settled for $1.25 million and covered 49 territories.¹³

The largest resolution came in California. A class action brought by Daniel Ludlow produced a $55 million common fund for roughly 475 plaintiffs, and Flowers agreed to repurchase about 350 California distribution territories at an estimated cost of about $65 million, converting those routes to a company-employee model. The company committed $50 million to support the broader workforce conversion in California.¹⁴¹⁵

The lawsuits center on how much control Flowers actually has over its distributors. Complaints have alleged that the company dictates pricing, product selection, delivery schedules, and display arrangements; requires company-provided handheld computers; prohibits distributors from carrying competing products or hiring assistants without written approval; and enforces compliance through spot checks and the threat of termination. Distributors have reported 70- to 80-hour weeks. When a distributor is unavailable, Flowers has used its own full-time employees to service the route.¹⁶ Flowers has maintained throughout that the suits have “no legal merit” and that its settlement provisions are designed to “strengthen the role of distributors as independent contractors.”¹³

Flowers’ network comprised roughly 4,274 independently operated distributor territories in early 2026 alongside company-operated routes, and the company’s 2026 annual report identifies the independent-contractor classification of its distributors as a material risk that could cause results to differ materially from projections.¹⁷ With the Supreme Court’s ruling removing arbitration as a shield in cases like Brock’s, that risk is now bigger than it was a year ago.

1
Supreme Court of the United States. Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, 608 U.S. ___ (2026)
2
Constitutional Accountability Center. Flowers Foods v. Brock
3
Justia. Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, 608 U.S. ___ (2026)
4
Oyez. Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock
5
Justia. Brock v. Flowers Foods, No. 23-1182
6
CPR Dispute Resolution. A Review: Supreme Court Considers Another FAA Sec. 1 Arbitration Exemption
7
FreightWaves. Amazon Files Amicus Brief in Flowers Foods v. Brock
8
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock
9
Arnold & Porter. Supreme Court Expands Scope of FAAs Transportation Worker Exemption
10
Greenberg Traurig. Supreme Court Finds FAA Transportation Worker Exemption Does Not Require Employment in Transportation Industry
11
Justia. Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. ___ (2024)
12
Food Dive. Flowers Foods Promises Profitability Boost, Defends Independent Distributor Model
13
HR Dive. Flowers Foods Pays $9M to Settle Massive Lawsuit for FLSA Violation
14
Baking Business. Legal Settlement Drags Down Flowers Foods
15
Staffing Industry Analysts. Flowers Foods Reaches $55 Million Settlement
16
Class Action. Ryan v. Flowers Foods Complaint
17
Stocklight. Flowers Foods 2026 Annual Report (Form 10-K)