In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Cause No. 3:05–MD–527 RM.

• Decision Date: 24 April 2012
• Docket Number: Cause No. 3:05–MD–527 RM.,No. MDL–1700.,MDL–1700.
• Citation: 869 F.Supp.2d 942
• 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

869 F.Supp.2d 942

In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Employment Practices Litigation.

This Document Relates to: All Actions Civil No. 3:05–CV–530 RM (KS).

Cause No. 3:05–MD–527 RM.

No. MDL–1700.

United States District Court,

N.D. Indiana,

South Bend Division.

April 24, 2012.

Beth A. Ross, Leonard Carder LLP, San Francisco, CA, Lynn R. Faris, Leonard Carder LLP, Oakland, CA, Peter J. Agostino, Anderson, Agostino & Keller PC, South Bend, IN, Susan E. Ellingstad, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, George A. Barton, Law Offices of George A. Barton PC, Kansas City, MO, Robert I. Harwood, Harwood Feffer LLP, New York, NY, Robert E. McDaniel, McDaniel Law Offices, Concord, NH, Lynn R. Faris, Leonard Carder LLP, Oakland, CA, Dan S. Smith, Dan Solomon Smith LLC, Orange, NJ, Peter W. Overs, Jr., Harwood Feffer LLP, New York, NY, Richard Tanenbaum, Brooklyn, NY, Donald R. Taylor, Taylor, Dunham & Burgess LLP, Austin, TX, Dmitri Iglitzin, Schwerin, Campbell, Barnard LLP, Martin S. Garfinkel, Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Seattle, WA, Steve D. Larson, Stoll, Stoll, Berne, Lokting & Shlachter PC, Portland, OR, Peter W Overs, Jr., Harwood Feffer LLP, New York, NY, Susan E. Ellingstad, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, Jack D. Hilmes, Kevin J. Driscoll, Finley, Alt, Smith, Scharnberg, Craig, Hilmes & Gaffney PC, Des Moines, IA, Ginger A. Degroff, Tampa, FL, James A. Staack, Staack, Simms & Hernandez PA, Clearwater, FL, Daniel O. Myers, Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman LLC, Mount Pleasant, SC, Eleanor I. Morton, Leonard Carder LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey A. Bartos, Guerrieri, Edmond, Clayman & Bartos PC, Washington, DC, B. James Fitzpatrick, Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, Salinas, CA, William S. Hommel, Jr., Attorney at Law, Tyler, TX, Andrew J. Kahn, McCracken, Stemerman & Holsberry, Las Vegas, NV, Jacqueline Mezquita Fernandez, Miami, FL, J. Allen Brinkley, Brinkley & Chesnut, Huntsville, AL, Larry A. Golston, Jr., Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles PC, Montgomery, AL, Mark A. Friel, Stoll, Stoll, Berne, Lokting & Shlachter PC, Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs.

Wesley Martin, pro se. Devon Nugent, pro se.

Melissa Rohman, pro se.

Ralph Carl Veal, pro se.

Ricardo Huerta, pro se.

C. Victor Pyle, III, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Columbia, SC, Karen P. Kruse, Jackson Lewis LLP, Seattle, WA, Michael J. Puma, Morgan Lewis LLP, Philadelphia, PA, R. Jay Taylor, Jr., Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary PC, Indianapolis, IN, Robert I. Harwood, Harwood Feffer LLP, New York, NY, Steve Dennis, Reid & Dennis PC, Dallas, TX, Alison G. Fox, Thomas J. Brunner, Jr., Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, South Bend, IN, Carolyn J. Kubota, Robert M. Schwartz, Scott Voelz, Cameron H. Biscay, Laura E. Robinson, Michael W Garrison, Jr., Michael G. McGuinness, Victor H. Jih, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Chris A. Hollinger, Michael W. Kopp, Nora M. Puckett, Robin Dean, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA, Kenneth Lee Blalack, II, Evelyn L. Becker, Aparna B. Joshi, Guy Brenner, Jeffrey S. Nestler, Kenneth Lee Blalack, II, John H. Beisner, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC, Alison G. Fox, D. Lucetta Pope, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, South Bend, IN, Jeffrey A. Trimarchi, Jennifer Lee Merzon, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY, Lesley A. Pate, Robert G. Ames, Venable LLP, Washington, DC, Rosemary J. Bruno, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Newark, NJ, Brett J. Preston, Hill, Ward, Henderson PA, Tampa, FL, Aaron Roblan, Jackson Lewis, Seattle, WA, Michael R. Reck, Belin McCormick, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.

OPINION and ORDER

ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., District Judge.

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 practices for 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.

I. Common Facts Applicable to Right to Control

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's Business

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.

Business Objectives in the Operating Agreement

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:

(a) Provide daily pick-up and delivery service to consignees and shippers on days and at times which are compatible with their schedules and requirements within Contractor's Primary Service Area, ... and in such other areas as Contractor may be asked to service,[ ²] all...