Alexander v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 12–17458,12–17509.,s. 12–17458 |
| Citation | 765 F.3d 981 |
| Parties | Dean ALEXANDER; Peter Allen; Albert Anaya; Suzanne Andrade; Jarrett Henderson; Ely Ines; Jorge Isla; Paul Infantino; Erik Jeppson; Gupertino Magana; Bernard Mendoza; Jesse Padilla; Joey Rodriguez; Dale Rose; Allan Ross; Agostino Scalercio; Dean Wiley; Anthony Ybarra, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., dba FedEx Home Delivery, Defendant–Appellee. Dean Alexander; Peter Allen; Albert Anaya; Suzanne Andrade; Jarrett Henderson; Ely Ines; Jorge Isla; Paul Infantino; Erik Jeppson; Gupertino Magana; Bernard Mendoza; Jesse Padilla; Joey Rodriguez; Dale Rose; Allan Ross; Agostino Scalercio; Dean Wiley; Anthony Ybarra, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., dba FedEx Home Delivery, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Beth A. Ross (argued), Aaron D. Kaufmann, and Elizabeth C. Morris, Leonard Cardner, LLP, Oakland, CA; and Ellen Lake, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs–Appellants/Cross–Appellees.
Jonathan Hacker (argued), O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, D.C.; Anton Metlitsky, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY; Chris Hollinger, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; Carolyn Kubota and Robert Swerdlow, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant–Appellee/Cross–Appellant.
Richard Pianka, Arlington, VA, for Amici Curiae American Trucking Associations, Inc., and California Trucking Association.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:05–cv–00038–EMC.
Before: ALFRED T. GOODWIN, STEPHEN S. TROTT, and WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge W. Fletcher; Concurrence by Judge Trott.
As a central part of its business, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FedEx”), contracts with drivers to deliver packages to its customers. The drivers must wear FedEx uniforms, drive FedEx-approved vehicles, and groom themselves according to FedEx's appearance standards. FedEx tells its drivers what packages to deliver, on what days, and at what times. Although drivers may operate multiple delivery routes and hire third parties to help perform their work, they may do so only with FedEx's consent.
FedEx contends its drivers are independent contractors under California law. Plaintiffs, a class of FedEx drivers in California, contend they are employees. We agree with plaintiffs.
Named plaintiffs represent a class comprising approximately 2300 individuals who were full-time delivery drivers for FedEx in California between 2000 and 2007. Plaintiff class members worked for FedEx's two operating divisions, FedEx Ground and FedEx Home Delivery. FedEx Ground deals primarily with business-to-business deliveries, while FedEx Home Delivery deals primarily with residential deliveries. The differences between the two divisions do not matter to this appeal.
FedEx characterizes its drivers as independent contractors. FedEx's Operating Agreement (“OA”) governs its relationship with the drivers. The OA's “Background Statement” provides:
[T]his Agreement will set forth the mutual business objectives of the two parties ... but the manner and means of reaching these results are within the discretion of the [driver], and no officer or employee of FedEx ... shall have the authority to impose any term or condition on [the driver] ... which is contrary to this understanding.
A provision of the OA titled “Discretion of Contractor to Determine Method and Means of Meeting Business Objectives,” states:
[N]o officer, agent or employee of FedEx ... shall have the authority to direct [the driver] as to the manner or means employed.... For example, no officer, agent or employee of FedEx ... shall have the authority to prescribe hours of work, whether or when the [driver] is to take breaks, what route the [driver] is to follow, or other details of performance.
FedEx's relationship with its drivers also is governed by various policies and procedures prescribed by FedEx.
The OA requires FedEx drivers to pick up and deliver packages within their assigned “Primary Service Area[s].” Drivers must deliver packages every day that FedEx is open for business, and must deliver every package they are assigned each day. They must deliver each package within a specific window of time negotiated between FedEx and its customers. After each delivery, drivers must use an electronic scanner to send data about the delivery to FedEx. FedEx does not require drivers to follow specific delivery routes. However, FedEx tells its managers to design and recommend to its drivers routes that will “reduce travel time” and “minimize expenses and maximize earnings and service.”
FedEx does not expressly dictate working hours, but it structures drivers' workloads to ensure that they work between 9.5 and 11 hours every working day. If a driver's manager determines that the driver has more work than he or she “can reasonably be expected to handle” in a 9.5 to 1 1–hour day, the manager may reassign part of the driver's workload to other drivers. Drivers are compensated according to a somewhat complex formula that includes per day and per-stop components. Drivers are expected to arrive at their delivery terminals each morning, and they are not supposed to leave the terminal until all of their packages are available for pick-up. FedEx instructs managers to make sure that drivers properly fill out their paperwork and prepare their packages for delivery. Each terminal sets a time by which all drivers must return at the end of the day. If drivers want their trucks loaded by FedEx's package-handlers, they must leave their trucks at the terminal overnight.
The OA gives FedEx the authority to “reconfigure” a driver's service area upon five days' written notice. Drivers have the right to propose a plan to avoid reconfiguration, “using means satisfactory to FedEx.” FedEx “may, in its sole discretion,” reject a plan that does not “provide reasonable means to continue” the driver's service area. Should a driver's service area be reconfigured in such a way that the driver gains customers, FedEx may reduce that driver's pay to compensate other drivers who lost customers in the reconfiguration.
FedEx trains its drivers on how best to perform their job and to interact with customers. The OA provides that, during the first 30 days of the contract term, FedEx “shall ... familiarize [drivers] with various quality service procedures developed by FedEx.” The OA requires drivers to conduct themselves “with integrity and honesty, in a professional manner, and with proper decorum at all times.” They must “[f]oster the professional image and good reputation of FedEx.”
A driver's managers may conduct up to four ride-along performance evaluations each year, “to verify that [the driver] is meeting the standards of customer service” required by the OA. Managers are supposed to observe and record small details about each step of a delivery, including whether a driver uses a “dolly or cart” to move packages, demonstrates a “sense of urgency,” and “[p]laces [his or her] keys on [the] pinky finger of [his or her] non-writing hand” after locking the delivery vehicle. After finishing a ride-along evaluation, managers are supposed to give immediate feedback to drivers about the quality of their work. FedEx contends in this litigation that this feedback constitutes mere recommendations that drivers are free either to follow or disregard.
Drivers must follow FedEx's “Safe Driving Standards.” These standards prohibit many illegal acts, such as “[d]riving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs” and “[u]sing a motor vehicle in the commission of a felony.” They also forbid some legal conduct, including “[d]riving a motor vehicle in a speed exhibition, contest or drag race” and “[c]arrying passengers not authorized by FedEx.”
The OA allows drivers to operate more than one vehicle and route, but only “with the consent of FedEx” and only if “consistent with the capacity of the [driver's] terminal.” Drivers may also hire third parties to help perform their work. Third-party helpers must be “qualified pursuant to applicable federal, state and municipal safety standards and [FedEx's] Safe Driving Standards.” They must be “fully trained” and must “conform fully” with the OA. Drivers “in good standing” under the OA may assign their rights and obligations to replacement drivers, but any such replacement must be “acceptable to FedEx.”
Drivers enter into the OA for an initial term of one, two, or three years. At the end of the initial term, the OA provides for automatic renewal for successive one-year terms if neither party provides notice of their intent not to renew. The OA may be terminated (1) by the parties' mutual agreement; (2) for cause, including a breach of any provision of the OA; (3) if FedEx stops doing business or reduces operations in all or part of the driver's service area; or (4) upon thirty days' written notice by the driver. The OA requires drivers to submit claims for wrongful termination to arbitration.
FedEx requires its drivers to provide their own vehicles. Vehicles must not only meet “all applicable federal, state and municipal laws and regulations,” but also must be specifically approved by FedEx. The OA allows FedEx to dictate the “identifying colors, logos, numbers, marks and insignia” of the vehicles. All vehicles must be painted “FedEx white,” a specific shade of Sherwin–Williams paint, or its equivalent. They must be marked with the FedEx logo, and “maintained in a clean and presentable fashion free of body damage and extraneous markings.” FedEx requires vehicles to have specific...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lasater v. DirecTV, LLC
...look like FedEx employees, act like FedEx employees, and are paid like FedEx employees." Id. ; see also Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 765 F.3d 981, 995 (9th Cir. 2014) ("While the drivers have opportunities to expand their business by taking on additional routes and hiring......
-
Johnson v. Serenity Transp., Inc.
...right-to-control test without reference to Martinez or the IWC Wage Order definitions. See, e.g. , Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc. , 765 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir.2014) ; Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp. , 754 F.3d 1093, 1100–01 (9th Cir.2014) ; Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers......
-
Craig v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc.
...from California and Oregon dealing with the same subject matter as our certified questions. See Alexander v. FedEx Ground Packages System, Inc. , 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir.2014) (California) and Slayman, 765 F.3d 1033 (Oregon). Focusing on the extent to which FedEx exercised its right to contro......
-
Justice v. Rockwell Collins, Inc.
...classified as independent contractors could recover unpaid wages under California law. Id. at 19–22 (citing Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir.2014) ; Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., 754 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 877, 190......
-
Ridesharing's House of Cards: O'connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and the Viability of Uber's Labor Model in Washington
...178. See, e.g., Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2014); Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 686 F.3d 423 (7th Cir. 2012); Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 592 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2010); FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB, 563 F.3d 492 (D.C. Cir. ......
-
Labor's Antitrust Problem: A Case for Worker Welfare.
...596, 599 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). (122.) Id. at 502. (123.) Id. at 498. (124.) Id. at 499. (125.) Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. (126.) Id. at 993. (127.) Id. at 997. (128.) Id. at 988 (quoting S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations, 769 P......
-
Dynamex Is Dynamite, but Epic Systems Is Its Foil - Chamber of Commerce: The Sleeper in the Trilogy.
...test with the new entrepreneurial-opportunities test developed by the D.C. Circuit." Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc, 765 F.3d 981, 993 (9th Cir. I have long been of the view that the control attributable to government regulation is irrelevant and should not be distinguished fro......
-
Selected Developments in Franchise Law
...in Los Angeles.Developments in California Case Law: Right to Control/Vicarious Liability Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2014): The ninth circuit found that FedEx's characterization of its drivers as independent contractors in its Operating Agreement w......