{"id":412,"date":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=412"},"modified":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","slug":"nelson-macys-faa-section-1-transportation-worker-exemption-warehouse","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=412","title":{"rendered":"Nelson v. Macy’s Retail Holdings \u2014 N.D. Cal. denies arbitration of warehouse worker\u2019s wage claims under FAA \u00a7 1 transportation worker exemption"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Latrice Nelson v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-07<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-05541<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Federal Arbitration Act \u00a7 1; transportation worker exemption; Ortiz v. Randstad Inhouse Services<\/em>; warehouse fulfillment associates; CAFA removal; Class Action Fairness Act<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Latrice Nelson, a former Macy\u2019s warehouse worker at the Concord Sunvalley facility, sued Macy\u2019s in Contra Costa County Superior Court on behalf of a putative class of California \u201cfulfillment associates\u201d who handled, picked, packed, or processed packages or goods as part of international or interstate commerce. Macy\u2019s removed the case to the Northern District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act and moved to compel arbitration based on language in its new-hire paperwork.<\/p>\n

In a December 2025 order, the court signaled that it was inclined to deny the motion under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which exempts contracts of employment of transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. Recognizing that the exemption requires the worker to handle goods moving in interstate commerce, the court invited Macy\u2019s to submit additional evidence about where the merchandise at issue originated. Nelson\u2019s own declaration described the merchandise as including international brands such as Versace, Dolce & Gabbana, Ralph Lauren, Adidas, and Calvin Klein. Macy\u2019s submitted a declaration from a Hayward Distribution Center operations leader stating that more than 55% of merchandise came from a Santa Fe Springs, California third-party facility, less than 40% came directly from locations outside California, and less than 5% came from another in-California distribution center.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied Macy\u2019s motion to compel arbitration. The court held that, under controlling Ninth Circuit authority in Ortiz v. Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC<\/em>, warehouse fulfillment associates who pick and package merchandise \u201cwith the direct purpose of facilitating their continued travel through an interstate supply chain\u201d qualify as transportation workers exempt under FAA \u00a7 1.<\/p>\n

Macy\u2019s evidence did not create a triable dispute. The Hayward Distribution Center declaration was non-responsive to Nelson\u2019s factual claim that she handled merchandise originating overseas: it described the immediate source from which the goods reached the distribution center, not where they originated. The fact that 55% of merchandise reached the distribution center via an in-California third-party warehouse does not establish that the merchandise originated within California, particularly when international brands typically associated with overseas manufacturing are involved. Roughly 40% of the merchandise reached the distribution center directly from outside California \u2014 itself enough to support the inference of interstate commerce.<\/p>\n

Because Nelson, like the warehouse workers in Ortiz<\/em>, was engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of FAA \u00a7 1, the arbitration agreement was not enforceable under the FAA. The court denied the motion to compel and kept the case management conference on calendar, while flagging that under Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski<\/em> Macy\u2019s could appeal and seek a stay if it chose.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n