Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc. (In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc. Emp't Practices Litig.)
Decision Date | 08 July 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 10–3115.,10–3115. |
Citation | 792 F.3d 818 |
Parties | In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION. Carlene M. Craig, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., Defendant–Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Beth A. Ross, Attorney, Leonard Carder, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellant.
J. Timothy Eaton, Attorney, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Chicago, IL, Jonathan Hacker, Attorney, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant–Appellee.
Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from the MDL court's grant of summary judgment to FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., and denial of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiff drivers were independent contractors as a matter of law under the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA), Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 44–312 to 44–340. See In Re FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 734 F.Supp.2d 557 (N.D.Ind.2010).
After hearing oral argument, we certified two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court: (1) Given the undisputed facts presented to the district court in this case, are the plaintiff drivers employees of FedEx as a matter of law under the KWPA? (2) Drivers can acquire more than one service area from Fed Ex. Is the answer to the preceding question different for plaintiff drivers who have more than one service area? Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 686 F.3d 423, 431 (7th Cir.2012). The court expresses its appreciation to the Justices of the Kansas Supreme Court for their willingness to answer these questions.
The Kansas Supreme Court answered “yes” to the first question and, as applied to the members of the certified class—drivers who “drive a vehicle on a full-time basis”—answered “no” to the second question. Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 300 Kan. 788, 335 P.3d 66, 92–93 (2014) (per curiam). In responding to the questions, the court restated the twenty factors from Crawford v. Kansas Dep't of Human Resources, 17 Kan.App.2d 707, 845 P.2d 703 (1989), used to determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists. 335 P.3d at 74, 76. The court explained that the twenty-factor test “includes economic reality considerations, while maintaining the primary focus on an employer's right to control” and held that the test “is the tool to be used in Kansas to determine whether an employer/employee relationship exists under the KWPA.” Id. at 76.
Upon receipt of the Kansas Supreme Court's answers to our questions, we requested the parties to brief their respective positions in light of those answers and decisions from other circuits issued after argument in our case. FedEx's understanding of the Kansas Supreme Court's decision strays from reality. The Kansas court restated the 20–factor test for determining employment status under the KWPA by eliminating ambiguous or duplicative descriptions; it did not enunciate a new test that requires further development of the factual record. The Kansas court stated a slightly different articulation of the 20–factor test, but the essence of the 20 factors remains the same.
And contrary to FedEx's view, the Kansas court's decision did not rest on whether FedEx exercises “actual control” over the plaintiff drivers. We repeat what the court actually said:
The District Court in this case primarily focused on the OA's [Operating Agreement] statements of Fed–Ex's right to control the drivers, opining that the actual control that FedEx exercised over the drivers was not the question. But we consider the manner in which FedEx implemented the OA to be a compelling factor in determining the substantive question of the company's right to control its drivers.
Id. at 76 (citation omitted). This is simply another way of saying that FedEx's policies and procedures bear on its right to control the drivers, which is how the MDL court viewed the matter as well. See, e.g., In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., 734 F.Supp.2d at 577 () ; id. at 579 () ; id. at 589 () . The Kansas court's decision does not mandate an evidentiary inquiry into actual control. “Actual control” cannot even be found among the twenty factors used to determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists under the KWPA. See 335 P.3d at 76.
FedEx's other criticisms of the Kansas Supreme Court's decision are unavailing as well. For example, FedEx asserts that the Kansas court relied on the factual record in Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., 154 Cal.App.4th 1, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 327 (2007). However, the court's reference to Estrada 's commentary on FedEx's right to control under the OA was made to emphasize to the Kansas court's own conclusions. In addition, decertification of the class in the Craig case is neither required nor appropriate. FedEx dismissed its cross-appeal of the MDL court's class certification order in this case.
Not surprisingly, FedEx argues that we should not follow the Kansas...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lu Junhong v. Boeing Co.
... ... , the plane was about 90 feet above the ground, and the airplane did not have the performance ... v. Marion Laboratories, Inc., 808 F.2d 648, 650 (7th Cir.1987) (when a ... Hiller Sys. Inc., 54 F.3d 203, 207 (4th Cir.1995) (same) ... ...
-
Henry v. Hulett
... ... adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve ... the district court's judgment on the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity ... Am. LLC v. Jones Lang LaSalle Ams., Inc. , 882 F.3d 692, 705 (7th Cir. 2018). "The ... " (emphasis added)); In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc. Emp't Practices Litig ... ...
-
Tofaute v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc. (In re Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc.)
... ... Supp.3d 1225 IN RE FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION This Document Relates to: Michael Tofaute, et al. v. FedEx ... and the court of appeals, the parties recommended that the Kansas Craig case be addressed first, as something of a quasi-bellwether case. After ... In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc. Emp't Practices Litig. , 792 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2015). In addition to the reversal in the Kansas ... ...
-
Ibarra v. Port of Hous. Auth. of Harris Cnty.
... ... Defendant, Konecranes, Inc., represented by, Laura N Gleen, Buck Keenan, ... jurisdiction under the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code 101.021 5 and requests a jury ... Had Hunter moved to remand on the ground that removal was improper because Andrews was an ... ...