Joyner v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.
No. 25-1211. 9/1/2026. D.Colo. Judge Murphy. Federal Arbitration Act—Class Actions—Defining Class of Workers—Motion to Compel Arbitration.
September 1, 2026
Frontier Airlines, Inc. (Frontier) is a commercial airline that operates out of the Denver International Airport (DIA). Menzies Aviation (Menzies) provides support services to Frontier at DIA, including fuel support, air cargo support, and passenger services such as ticketing, check-in, and boarding. Joyner, Dixon, and Hobley (collectively, employees) currently work or formerly worked for Menzies and Frontier as customer service agents. Joyner and Dixon worked at Frontier’s ticket counters, while Hobley worked at Frontier’s boarding gates. Employees, individually and on behalf of similarly situated class members, filed a complaint against Menzies and Frontier asserting causes of action based on Colorado wage laws. They alleged that Menzies and Frontier improperly deducted time from their worked hours for lunch breaks they did not receive, forced them to work through rest breaks, and did not pay them overtime wages or commissions they earned. Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and Colorado law, Menzies and Frontier moved to compel arbitration based on mandatory arbitration clauses in employees’ employment contracts. Among other things, Menzies argued that DIA-based customer service agents were not transportation workers because their handling of interstate cargo (i.e., passenger luggage) was merely incidental or infrequent. Employees claimed that the FAA did not apply to their employment contracts because they were transportation workers and thus members of a “class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” Employees also asserted that the Colorado Wage Act (CWA) voids agreements purporting to waive rights under the CWA, including arbitration agreements waiving the right to bring CWA claims in court. The district court focused narrowly on the work employees performed and concluded that a central part of their duties involves the interstate transportation of luggage and personal belongings. The court thus ruled they were exempt from the FAA because they were transportation workers, and it denied Menzies’s and Frontier’s motions to compel. The court did not address the motions to compel arbitration under Colorado law.
On appeal, Menzies and Frontier argued that the district court erred in defining the relevant class of workers for purposes of the first step of the applicable analysis under Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450, 456 (2022). Section 1 of the FAA (the residual clause) exempts from FAA’s coverage contracts of any class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. Saxon created a two-part framework for determining whether an employment contract that has a mandatory arbitration clause is exempt from the FAA under the residual clause. As relevant here, the first step of the Saxon analysis is to identify the relevant class of workers. Saxon held that to define a “class of workers,” courts must consider the actual work that the class members as a whole typically perform. Here, the district court erred by focusing only on the work employees performed instead of focusing on the work performed generally by the class of workers that employees belong to.
The order denying the motions to compel was reversed and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.