Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-309_o758.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. v. SAXON 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 21–309.  Argued March 28, 2022—Decided June 6, 2022 

Respondent  Latrice  Saxon,  a  ramp  supervisor  for  Southwest  Airlines, 
trains and supervises teams of ramp agents who physically load and 
unload cargo on and off airplanes that travel across the country.  Like 
many ramp supervisors, Saxon also frequently loads and unloads cargo 
alongside the ramp agents.  Saxon came to believe that Southwest was 
failing  to  pay  proper  overtime  wages  to  ramp  supervisors,  and  she
brought a putative class action against Southwest under the Fair La-
bor Standards Act of 1938.  Because Saxon’s employment contract re-
quired her to arbitrate wage disputes individually, Southwest sought 
to  enforce  its  arbitration  agreement  and  moved  to  dismiss.    In  re-
sponse, Saxon claimed that ramp supervisors were a “class of workers
engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” and therefore exempt from 
the  Federal  Arbitration  Act’s  coverage.    9  U. S. C.  §1.    The  District 
Court disagreed, holding that only those involved in “actual transpor-
tation,” and not those who merely handle goods, fell within §1’s exemp-
tion.  The Court of Appeals reversed.  It held that “[t]he act of loading
cargo onto a vehicle to be transported interstate is itself commerce, as 
that  term  was  understood  at  the  time  of  the  [FAA’s]  enactment  in 
1925.”  993 F. 3d 492, 494. 

Held: Saxon belongs to a “class of workers engaged in foreign or inter-

state commerce” to which §1’s exemption applies.  Pp. 3–11.

(a) This  Court  interprets  §1’s  language  according  to  its  “ordinary, 
contemporary,  common  meaning.”  Sandifer  v.  United  States  Steel 
Corp.,  571  U. S.  220,  227.    To  discern  that  ordinary  meaning,  those 
words  “ ‘must  be  read’ ”  and  interpreted  “ ‘in  their  context.’ ”  Parker 
Drilling  Management  Services,  Ltd.  v.  Newton,  587  U. S.  ___,  ___. 
Pp. 3–7.