City, it appears that courts have unanimously defined "transportation workers” as those involved in the movement of physical goods: Kowalewski, 590 F.Supp.2d at 484 ("The Court thus finds the involvement of physical goods to be an indispensable element to being engaged in commerce in the same way that seamen and railroad workers are.” (internal citation and quotations omitted)); Tran v. Texan Lincoln Mercury, Inc., No. H-07-1815, 2007 WL 2471616, at *5, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63725, at*14 (S.D. Tex, Aug. 29, 2007) ("[A] transportation worker is someone who works in the transportation industry—an industry whose mission it is to move goods.”); Pelayo v. Platinum Limousine Servs., No. 15-00023, 2015 WL 9581801, at *12, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173580, at *35 n.6 (D. Haw. Dec. 30, 2015) (<HOLDING>). Based on Circuit City, and the overwhelming
holding that a mill and gin could be considered part of an exempt homestead if they were part of the exempt realty holding that assistant managers were exempt under the executive exemption because inter alia even taking their longer hours into account the exempt employees were paid substantially higher wages holding that apprendi was not triggered because the defendants were sentenced to terms of imprisonment that were within the maximum penalties for the rico offenses that they were found guilty of committing holding that tort claims were arbitrable because they arose out of and were related to contract holding that plaintiff limousine drivers were not exempt from the faa because they were not engaged in themoveiiient of goodsin interstate commerce