In re Fedex Ground Package Sys. Inc., Cause No. 3:05-MD-527 RM
Decision Date | 11 August 2010 |
Docket Number | MDL No. 1700,Cause No. 3:05-MD-527 RM |
Citation | 734 F.Supp.2d 557 |
Parties | In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Employment Practices Litigation. This Document Relates To: All Actions Civil No. 3:05-CV-530 RM (KS). |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
George A. Barton, Law Offices of George A. Barton PC, Kansas City, MO, Peter J. Agostino, Anderson Agostino & Keller PC, South Bend, IN, for Plaintiffs.
David M. Cialkowski, Zimmerman Reed PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, Evelyn L. Becker, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC, Michael J. Puma, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Randall J. Forbes, Frieden Unrein Forbes & Biggs LLP, Topeka, KS, for Defendant.
This matter is before the court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment concerning whether FedEx drivers 1 are employees or independent contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act, Kan. Stat. Ann.. § 44-313 et seq. Numerous summary judgment motions pend in both the certified and non-certified class-actions. This opinion sets forth facts commonly applicable to all certified class actions and addresses the Kansas plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (doc. 1163, 1248) and FedEx's cross-motion for summary judgment (doc. # 1215). The court also addresses FedEx's motion to strike individualized proof submitted in support of the plaintiffs' summary judgment motions (doc. # 1398) and the plaintiffs' motions to augment the record in support of their summary judgment motions (docs. 1992, 2064, and 2087).
The court GRANTS FedEx's motion to strike individualized proof to the extent the plaintiffs rely on the submitted documents in support of summary judgment to show individual contractors' experiences in class certification cases. The court cannot make generalizations about the class as a whole from a review of the actual control FedEx exercised over a segment of drivers.
The court exercises its discretion to DENY the plaintiffs' motions to augment the record. The documents the plaintiffs propose to submit are relevant to only a small segment of the plaintiff classes, cumulative of the evidence already submitted, or of little evidentiary value.
The court DENIES FedEx's requests for oral argument on the motions for summary judgment (doc. 1400 and 1471). The court finds that this matter can properly be resolved by a review of the parties' extensive evidentiary record and summary judgment briefing.
The court DENIES the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and GRANTS FedEx's cross-motion. The plaintiffs have all signed Operating Agreements labeling themselves as independent contractors, they can hire others to perform their assigned work and go work for another delivery company, and they can sell their routes to other qualified drivers; yet, they contend they are employees. The court sees it differently.
Upon review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the only reasonable inference is that FedEx hasn't retained the right to direct the manner in which drivers perform their work. FedEx supervises the drivers' work and offers numerous suggestions and best practicesfor performance of assigned tasks, but the evidence doesn't suggest that FedEx has the authority under the Operating Agreement to require compliance with its suggestions. Further, other factors strongly weigh in favor of independent contractor status; in particular, the parties intended to create an independent contractor arrangement, the drivers have the ability to hire helpers and replacement drivers, they are responsible for acquiring a vehicle and can use the vehicle for other commercial purposes, they can sell their routes to other qualified drivers, and FedEx doesn't have the right to terminate contracts at-will. Although some facts weigh in favor of employee status, after considering all the relevant factors, the court finds that the plaintiffs are independent contractors as a matter of law.
The court sets forth the facts from the perspective of what control FedEx has the right to exercise over its drivers and not necessarily what control FedEx actually exercises on a daily basis. While FedEx managers might exercise more control than what is retained in the Operating Agreement and commonly applicable policies and procedures, the class was certified on the basis of right to control, not actual exercise of control. The plaintiffs reiterated to this court during class certification that they could show right to control by reliance solely on the Operating Agreement and applicable policies and procedures and wouldn't go beyond those documents to prove their case. In short, the issue for today's purposes is what control FedEx had the right to exert pursuant to the parties' contractual relationship.
FedEx Ground, together with its operating division FedEx Home Delivery, provides small-package pick-up and delivery services through a network of pick-up and delivery drivers/contractors. FedEx Home Delivery provides small package delivery services primarily to residential customers, while FedEx Ground focuses on the pick-up and delivery of small packages to businesses. FedEx Services, Inc. sets pricing policy and rates for FedEx and supplies shared technology infrastructure support across all FedEx companies.
The Kansas plaintiffs, individually or through a sole proprietorship or corporation, entered into either a Ground or Home Delivery Operating Agreement with FedEx to provide daily pick-up and delivery service. Contractors agree to conduct their businesses so that they can be identified as part of the FedEx system. OA, Background. The Operating Agreement states that "[b]oth [FedEx] and Contractor intend that Contractor will provide these services strictly as an independent contractor, and not as an employee of [FedEx] for any purpose." Id. The Operating Agreement is to "set forth the mutual business objectives of the two parties intended to be served by th[e] Agreement-which are the results the Contractor agrees to seek to achieve-but the manner and means of reaching these results are within the discretion of the Contractor." Id. "[N]o officer or employee of [FedEx] shall have the authority to impose any term or condition on Contractor or on Contractor's continued operation which is contrary to this understanding." Id. The "Contractor agrees to direct the operation of the Equipment and to determine the methods, manner and means of performing the obligations specified in this Agreement." Id. at ¶ 1.4.
The Operating Agreement specifically sets forth FedEx's standards of service. To achieve FedEx's business objectives, the drivers agree to:
The parties agree that "Contractor shall be responsible for exercising independent discretion and judgment to achieve the business objectives and results ... and no officer, agent or employee of [FedEx] shall have the authority to direct Contractor as to the manner or means employed to achieve such objectives and results." FXHD OA, ¶ 1.14; FXG OA, ¶ 1.15. For example, FedEx can't "prescribe the hours of work, whether or when the Contractor is to take breaks, what route the Contractor is to follow, or other details of performance." FXHD OA, ¶ 1.14; FXG OA, ¶ 1.15.
FedEx has many written policies and procedures in place directed toward FedEx employees involving management of FedEx business operations. FedEx managers are expected to know the policies and procedures and generally are expected to follow them to the extent it makes good business sense to do so. In 2005, FedEx began a "Document Reengineering Initiative" to overhaul its policies, procedures, and forms. That initiative was meant to clarify the line between policies (statements "outlining a mandatory course of action") and procedures (statements "providing the how and when or how often for implementing the policies"), so that FedEx managers could better understand FedEx's expectations. Among the changes was Policy-007, reiterating that FedEx employees must adhere to the Operating Agreement in their interactions with drivers, that the terms of the Operating Agreement can't be modified, and, most...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Browning v. Ceva Freight, LLC
... ... were employed by Ceva Freight, LLC and EGL, Inc. and/or any other entities with, controlling, or ... Johnson v. FedEx Home Delivery, No. 04 Civ. 4935, 2011 WL ... See In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 734 F.Supp.2d 557, 571, 601 ... ...
-
Anfinson v. Fedex Ground Package Sys. Inc.
... ... Jones, 15 Wash.2d 603, 131 P.2d 736 (1942) (holding question of proximate cause is a mixed question of law and fact which must be submitted to the jury unless the facts are undisputed); Ling Nan Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., ... ...
-
Craig v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc.
... ... 108,526. Supreme Court of Kansas. Oct. 3, 2014. Steve Six, of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, of Kansas City, Missouri, argued the cause, and Beth A. Ross and Sandy N. Nathan, of Leonard Carder, LLP, of Oakland, California, Robert I. Harwood and Matthew M. Houston, of Harwood Feffer, ... ...
-
In re Fedex Ground Package System Inc.
... ... Cause No. 3:05MD527 RM.No. MDL1700. United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division. Dec ... Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 154 Cal.App.4th 1, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 327 (2007). The Estrada trial court held that the ... ...
-
Ridesharing's House of Cards: O'connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and the Viability of Uber's Labor Model in Washington
...Ground Package Sys., Inc., 592 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2010); FedEx Home Delivery, 563 F.3d 492; In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 734 F. Supp. 2d 557 (N.D. Ind. 2010). These cases all addressed nearly identical misclassification claims by FedEx delivery drivers. 196. Id. 197. See Deanne M.......