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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT