The Supreme Court Monday heard oral arguments for Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon and LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Company.

In Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, the Court will decide whether an airline ramp supervisor is a “transportation worker” and therefore exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.

Latrice Saxon was a ramp supervisor for Southwest Airline. As a ramp supervisor Saxon was responsible for  “loading and unloading cargo from Southwest planes, as well as supervising others.” Southwest Airlines employees are also suing the airline for overtime pay. The lower courts held that supervisors receiving overtime pay were “engaged in interstate commerce” therefore exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act because their work was critical to loading plane cargo.

Under the Federal Arbitration Act, an employer may enforce an employee who signs an agreement to bring disputes in arbitration rather than court but exempts “seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” Saxon argues that the exemption applies to employees that directly contribute to the transportation of goods across state lines. Saxon also suggests that by loading and unloading the goods from the plane she engaged in interstate commerce which makes her exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.

Southwest in contrast argues that Saxon does not fall within the exempt group because cargo loaders do not work on planes. The Court  questioned this argument by saying “Why wouldn’t we naturally understand someone who is loading and unloading cargo from interstate commerce to be involved in interstate commerce?” 

In LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, the Court will decide whether the term “use” applies to locomotives that are stationary or to locomotives that are briefly stationary under the Locomotive Inspection Act.

In this case, Bradley LeDure sued Union Pacific under the Federal Employers Liability Act. The Federal Employers Liability Act “allows railworkers to recover for injuries caused by a railroad’s safety and inspection violations, including violations of the Locomotive Inspection Act.”  However, under the Locomotive Inspection Act, an employee can only sue when locomotives are in “use” or “allowed to be used” on the railroad’s line.  The district court held that the terms “use” or “allowed to be used” did not apply to locomotives that were parked. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit reached the same conclusion as the district court and upheld the district court’s ruling. The Supreme Court took the case because the 7th Circuit narrowly defined the term “use” which conflicted with other courts’ interpretation of the term.

During arguments, LeDure suggested that “a locomotive is in use when the carrier is employing it for the railroad’s purposes” and that a brief stop does not take the locomotive out of use. LeDure relied on court precedent which found locomotives in use, under the Locomotive Inspection Act, when the locomotive was briefly motionless. LeDure also argued that the 7th Circuit’s view of the term “use” is narrow and conflicts with other court’s interpretations of the term.