Anfinson v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc.

Citation174 Wash.2d 851,281 P.3d 289
Decision Date19 July 2012
Docket NumberNo. 85949–3.,85949–3.
PartiesRandy ANFINSON, James Geiger, and Steven Hardie, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Respondents, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Petitioner, John Schnebeck, Cheryl Pilakowski, and John Does 1 through 10, Defendants.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

174 Wash.2d 851
281 P.3d 289

Randy ANFINSON, James Geiger, and Steven Hardie, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Respondents,
v.
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Petitioner,
John Schnebeck, Cheryl Pilakowski, and John Does 1 through 10, Defendants.

No. 85949–3.

Supreme Court of Washington,
En Banc.

Argued Feb. 14, 2012.
Decided July 19, 2012.


[281 P.3d 292]


Kelly Patrick Corr, Guy Paul Michelson, Kevin Carl Baumgardner, Emily J. Harris, Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Preece, Howard Mark Goodfriend, Catherine Wright Smith, Smith Goodfriend, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

William Joel Rutzick, Martin S. Garfinkel, Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Lawrence Rea Schwerin, Dmitri L. Iglitzin, Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lav, Seattle, WA, for Respondents.


Amanda J. Goss, Attorney General Office, Seattle, WA, amicus counsel for Department of Labor and Industries.

Toby James Marshall, Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie, PLLC, Jeffrey Lowell Needle, Maynard Building, Seattle, WA, amicus counsel for Washington Employment Lawyers Association.

OWENS, J.

[174 Wash.2d 856]¶ 1 This case concerns the classification of workers as employees or independent contractors for purposes of the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA), chapter 49.46 RCW. A class of 320 former and current FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (FedEx) delivery drivers (hereinafter Anfinson) brought this action seeking overtime wages under the MWA and reimbursement for uniform expenses under the industrial welfare act (IWA), chapter 49.12 RCW. The primary dispute with respect to both claims is whether the drivers were employees or independent contractors. The [174 Wash.2d 857]parties disagree on the correct test to distinguish these categories under the MWA; FedEx argues that the common law right-to-control standard governs while Anfinson contends that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201–219, economic-dependence test controls. The trial court gave the jury a hybrid instruction, focusing the inquiry on FedEx's right to control in light of the economic-dependence factors. The jury determined that the drivers were independent contractors.

¶ 2 Anfinson appealed, contending, among other things, that the jury instructions misinformed the jury about the standards for determining worker status and about the requirement

[281 P.3d 293]

that class status and evidence be “common to the class members,” Clerk's Papers (CP) at 2194 (Instruction 8). The Court of Appeals held that the jury instruction defining the standard for determining worker status was erroneous and prejudicial and reversed on that basis. Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 159 Wash.App. 35, 53–55, 244 P.3d 32 (2010). The Court of Appeals further held that the jury instruction on the burden of proof was erroneous because it misled the jury and was prejudicial. Id. at 65–71, 244 P.3d 32. We affirm the Court of Appeals in both respects.

FACTS

¶ 3 In 2004, Randy Anfinson, James Geiger, and Steven Hardie filed a class action against FedEx “for unpaid overtime wages and for reimbursement of uniform expenses.” CP at 7. Anfinson, Geiger, and Hardie, each a former FedEx pickup and delivery driver, sought to serve as representatives for a class consisting of all drivers who had signed a contractor agreement with FedEx and handled a single route over the three-year period preceding the filing of the complaint. On January 28, 2008, the trial court certified the class as proposed. The court also bifurcated the case into a liability phase and a damages phase.

[174 Wash.2d 858]¶ 4 Near the close of the liability phase, FedEx moved to decertify the class. The trial court denied the motion. After a four-week trial, the jury returned a verdict on March 31, 2009, finding that the class members were independent contractors, not employees. Anfinson appealed; FedEx did not cross-appeal.

¶ 5 In a thoughtful and carefully reasoned opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. Anfinson, 159 Wash.App. at 74, 244 P.3d 32. The court decided several issues in Anfinson's favor. Most notably, the court reversed the judgment, holding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the legal standard for determining whether a worker is an “employee” under the MWA. Id. at 53–55, 244 P.3d 32. The Court of Appeals also rejected FedEx's claim that Anfinson should be estopped from asserting that the economic-dependence test governs under the MWA. Id. at 62–63, 244 P.3d 32. The Court of Appeals further agreed with Anfinson that “the belief of the parties[ ] is not a relevant factor under the FLSA test” but left to the trial court the determination, in the first instance, of whether there are persuasive reasons to depart from the FLSA factors under the MWA. Id. at 59, 244 P.3d 32. In addition, the Court of Appeals held that the instruction requiring that the evidence be “common to the class members” was misleading and prejudicial. Id. at 68–71, 244 P.3d 32.

¶ 6 The Court of Appeals also decided several issues in FedEx's favor. With respect to the trial court's denial of several of Anfinson's proposed instructions, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court had not abused its discretion. Id. at 60–61, 63–64, 71, 244 P.3d 32. The court also held that the proper articulation of the FLSA factor focuses on the worker's investment, not the relative investment of the parties.1Id. at 59, 244 P.3d 32. Further, the Court of Appeals rejected Anfinson's contention that the trial court erred in giving [174 Wash.2d 859]the jury a special verdict form asking only whether the workers were employees or independent contractors as opposed to asking the jury to determine each of the factors and leaving the court to determine whether, based on those factors, the workers are employees or independent contractors. Id. at 71–73, 244 P.3d 32. Finally, the Court of Appeals denied as premature Anfinson's request for attorney fees. Id. at 73–74, 244 P.3d 32.

¶ 7 FedEx filed a petition for review of three issues. First, FedEx sought review of the Court of Appeals holding that worker status under the MWA is governed by the economic-dependence test and that instruction 9, which used the right-to-control test, was reversible error. Pet. for Review at 1. Second, FedEx sought review of the Court of Appeals holding that judicial estoppel does not apply in this case. Id. at 1–2. Third,

[281 P.3d 294]

FedEx sought review of the Court of Appeals conclusion that instruction 8, regarding the “common to the class members” requirement, was misleading and prejudicial. Id. at 2; CP at 2194. Anfinson did not raise any additional issues in its answer. See Resp'ts' Answer to Pet. for Review at 1. Accordingly, the additional issues decided by the Court of Appeals are not before us. SeeRAP 13.7(b). We granted FedEx's petition for review. Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 172 Wash.2d 1001, 258 P.3d 685 (2011).

ISSUES

¶ 8 1. Did instruction 9 correctly state the standard for determining whether a worker is an “employee” under the MWA?

¶ 9 Did instruction 8 correctly state that evidence must be common to the class members in a class action lawsuit under the MWA?

[174 Wash.2d 860]ANALYSIS
I. Standard of Review

¶ 10 Jury instructions are reviewed de novo for errors of law. Joyce v. Dep't of Corr., 155 Wash.2d 306, 323, 119 P.3d 825 (2005). “Jury instructions are sufficient when they allow counsel to argue their theory of the case, are not misleading, and when read as a whole properly inform the trier of fact of the applicable law.” Bodin v. City of Stanwood, 130 Wash.2d 726, 732, 927 P.2d 240 (1996). If any of these elements are absent, the instruction is erroneous. See Joyce, 155 Wash.2d at 323–25, 119 P.3d 825. An erroneous instruction is reversible error only if it prejudices a party. Id. at 323, 119 P.3d 825. Prejudice is presumed if the instruction contains a clear misstatement of law; prejudice must be demonstrated if the instruction is merely misleading. Keller v. City of Spokane, 146 Wash.2d 237, 249–50, 44 P.3d 845 (2002).

¶ 11 A trial court's decision with respect to the application of judicial estoppel is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Arkison v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 160 Wash.2d 535, 538, 160 P.3d 13 (2007). “A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision or order is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds, or exercised for untenable reasons.” Noble v. Safe Harbor Family Pres. Trust, 167 Wash.2d 11, 17, 216 P.3d 1007 (2009).

II. Employee Status under the MWAA. Anfinson Has Not Preserved Any Error regarding the IWA Claim

¶ 12 At trial, Anfinson claimed that FedEx had violated RCW 49.12.450, a component of the IWA, by failing to reimburse employees for uniform expenses. An element of this claim was proof that class members were employees and this determination was governed by instruction 9. The jury's finding that the class members were independent [174 Wash.2d 861]contractors, and not employees, applied to both the MWA and IWA claims. In its brief to the Court of Appeals, Anfinson's assertion that instruction 9 was erroneous was predicated exclusively on its interpretation of the MWA; Anfinson made no argument that instruction 9 contained an error of law with respect to the IWA. Cf.WAC 296–126–002(2)(c) (exempting “[i]ndependent contractors [who] control the manner of doing the work” from definition of employee under the IWA). While Anfinson's assignment of error is broad enough to cover the IWA claim, “[a] party that offers no argument in its opening brief on a claimed assignment of error waives the assignment.” Brown v. Vail, 169 Wash.2d 318, 336 n. 11, 237 P.3d 263 (2010). Accordingly, Anfinson has waived any argument that instruction 9 contained an error of law with respect to the IWA.

B. Judicial Estoppel Does Not Apply

¶ 13 FedEx argues that judicial estoppel precludes Anfinson from challenging the use of the right-to-control standard in determining...

To continue reading

Request your trial
177 cases
  • Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 30, 2018
    ...(2013) 260 Or.App. 87, 316 P.3d 389, 397 ; Commonwealth v. Stuber (Pa. 2003) 822 A.2d 870, 873-875 ; Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package System (2012) 174 Wash.2d 851, 281 P.3d 289, 297-299 ; see generally U.S. Dept. of Labor, Wage & Hour Div., Administrator's Interpretation letter No. 2015-1,......
  • Certification from the U.S. Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Wash. in Mariano Carranza v. Dovex Fruit Co., 94229-3
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • May 10, 2018
    ...Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 219, on which the MWA is largely based. Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 174 Wash.2d 851, 868, 281 P.3d 289 (2012). The FLSA provides that "[e]very employer shall pay to each of his employees ... in any workweek ... wag......
  • Pointe at Westport Harbor Homeowners' Ass'n v. Eng'rs Nw., Inc.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • May 3, 2016
    ...argue their theories of the case, do not mislead the jury, and inform the jury of the applicable law. Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 174 Wash.2d 851, 860, 281 P.3d 289 (2012). It is reversible error for a trial court to fail to instruct the jury on an applicable defense theory......
  • Spencer v. Badgley Mullins Turner, PLLC
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • November 13, 2018
    ...a double recovery to the sisters. This court reviews jury instructions de novo for errors of law. Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 174 Wash.2d 851, 860, 281 P.3d 289 (2012). Jury instructions (1) cannot be misleading, (2) must allow counsel to argue their theory of the case, and......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Ridesharing's House of Cards: O'connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and the Viability of Uber's Labor Model in Washington
    • United States
    • University of Whashington School of Law University of Washington Law Review No. 90-3, March 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...the course of the servant's service controlled by his master."). 13. Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 174 Wash. 2d 851, 871, 281 P.3d 289, 299 (2012); WASH. REV. CODE §§ 49.46.005-.920 (2014). 14. Kevin J. Miller, Welfare and the Minimum Wage: Are Workfare Participants "Employee......
  • The Myth of the Sharing Economy and Its Implications for Regulating Innovation
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 67-2, 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...(Kan. 2014) (holding the state's answer binding); Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 244 P.3d 32, 37 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010), afd, 281 P.3d 289, 293 (Wash. 2012).105. See Berwick v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 11-46739 EK, 2015 WL 4153765, at *6 (Cal. Dep't Labor June 3, 2015) (finding t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT