Almost one year to the day following the joint statement by the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey, and Montana that they intended to sue FedEx Ground for misclassifying drivers as independent contractors instead of employees, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has commenced a lawsuit against FedEx Ground on behalf of the State of New York.  (New York State v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.)

The lawsuit was filed the same week as the Attorney General of the Montana, Steve Bullock, announced that his office settled its driver misclassification claims against FedEx Ground for $2.3 million.  The New York lawsuit also follows by two months the filing of a similar misclassification lawsuit by the Attorney General of Kentucky, Jack Conway, and comes three months after the Attorney General of Massachusetts, Martha Coakley, settled its driver misclassification claims against FedEx Ground for $3 million.

Cuomo’s lawsuit was filed in the New York Supreme Court for New York County. It alleges that, by classifying its drivers as independent contractors, FedEx’s Home Delivery unit fails to provide its drivers the rights afforded to “employees” under New York’s labor laws, which includes the Unemployment Insurance, Workers Compensation, Wage Payment, and Overtime laws.  According to the complaint filed in court, Cuomo alleges that “FedEx has the power to control, and does in fact control, almost all aspects of its drivers’ work” including “hours, job duties, routes, and even clothing.”  There are reportedly over 700 drivers in the Home Delivery unit.  (Click “More” for “Takeaway” below)

Less than three months after settling independent contractor misclassification charges with the Massachusetts Attorney General for $3 million, FedEx Ground has agreed to pay Montana $2.3 million to settle that State’s misclassification claims against the worldwide courier.

According to the Attorney General of Montana Steve Bullock, FedEx Ground is paying the State for its failure to pay unemployment insurance taxes for its drivers, whom the Attorney General claims were employees that FedEx Ground has been misclassifying as independent contractors. The $2.3 million includes interest and penalties for misrepresenting employee information in its quarterly unemployment insurance reports to the State.  (Click “More” for “Takeaway” below)

The federal court judge assigned to over 60 cases involving FedEx Ground drivers who claim they have been misclassified as independent contractors instead of employees has issued his second key ruling in the case.  In contrast to the judge’s conclusion in May that FedEx Ground drivers in Illinois were employees and not independent contractors under that state’s restrictive wage payment laws, on August 11 the judge reached a contrary conclusion under Kansas wage payment law, which uses the more prevalent “common law” test.

The 103-page decision under Kansas law was issued by Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr., the federal district court judge located in the Northern District of Indiana who has responsibility for many of the class actions filed against FedEx Ground.  Judge Miller’s decision is significant for at least two reasons.

 
On July 15, 2010, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office announced that it had reached an agreement with FedEx Ground to settle a citation that the company was misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors (ICs) instead of properly classifying them as employees.  FedEx agreed to pay $3 million to settle the charges against it, including claims that it violated the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law and improperly failed to pay the state payroll taxes and workers’ compensation and unemployment assistance premiums by treating its Ground Division drivers as ICs.  FedEx denied any liability in settling the case.

On the same day, FedEx Ground reportedly launched a new business model in Massachusetts for its ground and home delivery drivers. The new business model gives its single-route drivers three options for continuing to work with FedEx on a going-forward basis: (a) become a multi-route Independent Service Provider (ISP) by incorporating as a business, purchasing from FedEx Ground three or more work areas in the same geographic area and entering into an agreement with FedEx on an approved ISP arrangement for the work areas; (b) become an employee driver of an approved FedEx Ground ISP (that is, become a driver for a another driver that has set up a business as an ISP); or (c) terminate his or her relationship with FedEx Ground at the expiration of its current Operating Agreement, which will not be renewed, leading to loss of “employment” with FedEx Ground.

The first decision on the merits has been issued in the FedEx Ground class action “independent contractor” cases. . . . On May 28, 2010, Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr., the judge assigned to hear and decide all of these Fed Ex Ground cases, granted summary judgment in favor of the Illinois plaintiffs on their wage claims under the Illinois Wage Act. . . . The decision by Judge Miller is limited to the statutory claims under a single state’s wage law. He expressly noted in his decision that he was not deciding the common law claims brought by the Illinois plaintiffs. Nonetheless, this decision by Judge Miller is a partial setback for Fed Ex, which has experienced mixed results in the courts to date.

URL
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2013/11/18/new-york-state-signs-agreements-with-u-s-department-of-labor-to-partner-in-preventing-independent-contractor-misclassification-15th-state-to-join-federal-misclassification-initiative
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2018/11/14/how-to-effectively-draft-arbitration-clauses-with-class-action-waivers-in-independent-contractor-agreements
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2019/01/15/supreme-court-decision-in-new-prime-may-have-limited-impact-on-independent-contractor-misclassification-claims-despite-some-commentators-exuberance-and-others-despair
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2019/02/04/january-2019-independent-contractor-misclassification-and-compliance-news-update
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2019/07/08/june-2019-independent-contractor-misclassification-and-compliance-news-update
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2019/09/11/how-to-operate-in-california-with-independent-contractors-after-ab5-bill-is-signed-into-law
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2019/12/17/a-solution-to-the-five-degrees-of-independent-contractor-misclassification
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2020/01/09/november-and-december-2019-independent-contractor-misclassification-and-compliance-law-news-update
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2020/02/14/january-2020-independent-contractor-misclassification-and-compliance-law-news-update
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2020/03/26/federal-cares-act-to-provide-unemployment-assistance-to-independent-contractors-paid-leave-now-also-available-to-ics
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2020/03/26/is-the-new-postmates-decision-in-new-york-a-blockbuster-case-on-independent-contractor-misclassification-or-not
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2020/04/07/how-can-companies-protect-themselves-against-independent-contractors-mistakenly-filing-as-employees-for-unemployment-benefits-under-the-cares-act
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2020/07/21/should-your-business-require-independent-contractors-to-sign-coronavirus-waivers-and-releases-of-liability
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/legal-resources/ic-diagnostics
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/?s=fedex&submit=GO
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/?s=new+york+construction+industry+fair+play+act
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/06/02/independentcontractorcompliance-com-a-legal-resource-promoting-compliance-with-laws-permitting-the-use-of-independent-contractors
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/06/04/fed-ex-ground-suffers-a-setback-in-illinois-court-finds-fedex-misclassified-its-illinois-drivers-as-independent-contractors
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/06/04/how-to-make-sense-out-of-all-those-alerts-about-independent-contractor-misclassification
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/06/25/senate-committee-moves-ahead-with-federal-bill-outlawing-misclassification-of-employees-as-independent-contractors
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/08/12/fedex-ground-update-on-driver-misclassification-new-lawsuit-follows-changes-to-fedex’s-massachusetts-business-model-launched-on-same-day-it-settles-with-state’s-attorney-general
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/08/12/fedex-ground-update-on-driver-misclassification-new-lawsuit-follows-changes-to-fedexs-massachusetts-business-model-launched-on-same-day-it-settles-with-states-attorney-general
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/08/30/fedex-ground-prevails-in-key-ruling-under-common-law-test-for-independent-contractor-status
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/09/02/a-game-changer-for-the-building-and-construction-industry-the-new-york-construction-industry-fair-play-act
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/09/22/fair-playing-field-act-of-2010-the-end-of-‘safe-harbor’-for-businesses-misclassifying-employees-as-independent-contractors
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/09/22/fair-playing-field-act-of-2010-the-end-of-safe-harbor-for-businesses-misclassifying-employees-as-independent-contractors
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/09/23/effect-of-congressional-passage-of-misclassification-legislation-on-the-enactment-of-new-state-laws-governing-independent-contractors
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/09/23/federal-bills-would-crack-down-on-misclassification-but-would-not-curtail-the-use-of-independent-contractors-if-businesses-make-timely-use-of-alternatives-to-enhance-their-compliance-with-existing-an
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/10/04/comments-and-views-on-our-posts-and-resource-pages-have-been-enabled-and-are-welcome
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/10/04/want-to-stay-up-to-date-law-firm-blog-posts-for-independent-contractor-compliance-are-now-available-by-rss-feed-or-e-mail
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/10/07/new-strategic-plan-by-us-dol-includes-identification-and-elimination-of-independent-contractor-misclassification-as-a-targeted-objective
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/10/08/another-class-action-certification-granted-in-a-misclassification-case-this-time-against-a-referral-agency-for-independent-contractors
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/10/14/pennsylvania-cracks-down-on-independent-contractor-misclassification-in-the-construction-industry-governor-signs-law-that-imposes-strict-standards-substantial-fines-and-criminal-penalties
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/10/20/misclassification-enforcement-state-and-federal-workforce-agencies-meet-to-coordinate-joint-efforts-to-crackdown-on-misuse-of-independent-contractor-status
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/10/21/fedex-ground-settles-with-montana-attorney-general-over-misclassification-of-drivers-as-independent-contractors-settlement-is-for-2-3-million-for-failure-to-pay-unemployment-insurance-taxes-and-with
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/10/24/new-york-is-next-state-to-sue-fedex-for-misclassification-of-its-ground-division-drivers-as-independent-contractors
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/10/27/congress-misfires-with-double-barreled-approach-to-misclassification-of-employees-as-independent-contractors
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/10/28/update-on-new-york’s-construction-industry-misclassification-law-takes-effect-today-ends-lawful-use-of-many-independent-contractors-and-requires-posting-of-government-notice
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/10/28/update-on-new-yorks-construction-industry-misclassification-law-takes-effect-today-ends-lawful-use-of-many-independent-contractors-and-requires-posting-of-government-notice
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/10/29/yet-another-class-action-certified-in-a-misclassification-case-adult-dancers-claim-they-are-not-independent-contractors-but-rather-employees-deprived-of-overtime
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2010/11/02/another-truck-delivery-firm-pays-out-2-25-million-to-settle-two-class-action-misclassification-cases
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2011/01/10/independent-contractor-misclassification-ruling-in-favor-of-fedex-ground-confirms-critical-role-played-by-ic-agreements-and-policies-and-procedures-in-class-action-litigation
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2011/01/26/maine-governor-takes-positive-step-to-clarify-state-independent-contractor-laws
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2011/01/26/presidents-state-of-the-union-speech-highlights-federal-focus-on-independent-contractor-misclassification-issue-and-1099s
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2011/02/28/pennsylvania-labor-department-issues-notices-and-complaint-forms-under-construction-workplace-misclassification-act
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2011/03/01/utah-legislators-seeking-to-clamp-down-on-creative-efforts-to-avoid-labor-costs-and-misclassification-liability
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2011/04/13/senate-re-loads-on-independent-contractor-misclassification-new-bill-characterizes-misclassification-as-payroll-fraud
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2011/04/29/repeal-of-expanded-form-1099-congressional-appropriation-for-worker-misclassification
https://www.independentcontractorcompliance.com/2011/09/22/irs’s-new-voluntary-classification-settlement-program-adds-additional-choice-for-companies-concerned-about-independent-contractor-misclassification-liability

The legal developments in the area of independent contractor misclassification and compliance last month include cases against a record label company, an Islamic Center, and a waste recycling company. Lawsuits for IC misclassification come from a diverse array of workers because companies in an endless number of industries have adopted

The highly controversial joint employer regulation just issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on October 26 is not so different than the standard that has historically been applied in determining whether a group of workers are employees or independent contractors under many state and federal laws. Indeed, a legitimate criticism of the NLRB’s joint employer rule is that it improperly relies upon one of the most important factors used by the courts to determine independent contractor status: reservation of the “right to control” the manner and means by which the agreed upon services are performed, “regardless of whether control is exercised.” 29 C.F.R. 103.40(e)(1). 

We report below on four case developments during June 2023 in the area of independent ‎contractor misclassification: two of which are centered on Illinois. That state has one of the ‎most stringent statutory tests for independent contractor status. As construed by the courts in ‎that state, the Illinois ABC test for IC status is similar to the tests in California and ‎Massachusetts, creating a hotbed for IC misclassification cases. While states with ABC tests ‎make it more challenging for companies to survive a legal challenge to their IC classifications, ‎there are ways many companies doing business in such states can still comply with such laws. ‎Many companies operating nationwide and in “ABC states” have used a process such as IC ‎Diagnostics (TM) to enhance their compliance and minimize exposure to IC misclassification ‎liability in all states in which they operate or engage the services of independent contractors. ‎

Yesterday, June 13, 2023, the NLRB issued a lengthy decision in its Atlanta Opera case dealing ‎with the applicable test for independent contractor status under the National Labor Relations Act ‎‎(NLRA). This decision reversed the Board’s prior test for IC status as expressed in the ‎SuperShuttle case decided by the NLRB in 2019. In a lengthy decision, three of the four ‎members of the Board expressly declined to follow a 2017 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals ‎for the District of Columbia Circuit in a case referred to as FedEx II, where the circuit court ‎concluded that the NLRB was seeking to “nullify this court’s [prior FedEx] decision” as to the ‎applicable test for independent contractor status. The bulk of the Board’s majority 19,000-word ‎decision focused on the supposed fallacies in the NLRB’s SuperShuttle decision and the ‎correctness of the NLRB’s prior FedEx decisions, which has twice been rejected by the D.C. ‎Circuit. But when the NLRB majority’s new decision is analyzed, does it really make a ‎difference what test the NLRB uses to determine IC status? As vividly demonstrated by the ‎Atlanta Opera case, nearly all of these independent contractor cases will be decided the same ‎way, regardless of which test is used. ‎