ILNews

South Bend federal judge rules on FedEx class action litigation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in South Bend has issued a significant 182-page opinion that holds FedEx drivers nationwide are independent contractors rather than employees entitled to back pay and full benefits.

U.S. Judge Robert Miller in the Northern District of Indiana made his decision Tuesday in the five-year-old In Re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc Employment Practices Litigation, MDL 1700, No. 3:05-MD-527, which is a series of multi-district litigation before him consisting of dozens of class-action cases filed by drivers in multiple states including Indiana. Judge Miller’s ruling tosses the claims that FedEx misidentified drivers’ employment status and owed them back pay, overtime, and other damages, though an appeal is likely before the litigation comes to a close.

Though the first individual FedEx cases addressing these issues began surfacing in 2001, the line of litigation obtained MDL centralization in 2005 and Judge Miller has been ruling on various nuances involved through the years. He largely granted class certification to many of the cases in March 2008 and some of the more significant happenings since then have come this year.

In his ruling this week, Judge Miller wrote that the “nationwide character” of this litigation makes it a truly unique set of cases, unlike anything that has appeared before him or in the cases cited by the parties.

Judge Miller found that the drivers are independent contractors in 20 of the 28 remaining group lawsuits, and the judge ruled in favor of FedEx on some claims in the other eight class-action cases.

The judge largely based his ruling on how each states’ laws dictate how employees should be classified, and in various ways that employment relationship turned on the degree of control the purported employer has over workers.

“FedEx doesn’t have the right to control the drivers’ means and methods of how they go about their work,” Judge Miller wrote. “FedEx’s results oriented controls don’t result in employee status.”

Judge Miller relied largely on his holding reached back in August in a FedEx case out of Kansas, where he ruled in the company’s favor and found it didn’t retain the “right to control” its drivers, but rather only offers “suggestions and best practices” and does not dictate delivery requirements.

Specific to the Indiana drivers’ claims, Judge Miller focused on Indiana Code §§ 22-2-6 and 22-2-4-4 concerning illegal deductions in wages as well as fraud statutes. The state statutes don’t define the term “employee,” and the parties agreed the court should interpret that term using Indiana’s common law test for employment status or a ten-factor analysis the Indiana Supreme Court has relied on in the past. The drivers cited a Fort Wayne newspaper’s suit ruled on by the Court of Appeals in 1995, but Judge Miller determined that caselaw isn’t controlling here because no one fact is dispositive and the totality must be considered. Relying on the Kansas decision rationale with the Hoosier statutes, Judge Miller held the Indiana drivers are independent contractors and ruled in favor of FedEx on all claims.

Judge Miller denied a motion by FedEx for a jury trial as moot.

 



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT