October Case Law Review

Miami1

In the October issue of our Case Law Updates, we review the following:

Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. dba FedEx Home Delivery
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case No. 12-17509

Facts:

This was a class action lawsuit in California, in which the Named Plaintiffs represented a class of approximately 2300 full-time FedEx delivery drivers in California between 2000 and 2007 who contended that they were employees, while FedEx claims they are independent contractors under California law. The Plaintiffs asserted claims for employment expenses and unpaid wages under the California Labor Code, based on them being improperly classified as independent contractors. FedEx and the Plaintiffs entered into an Operating Agreement which labeled Plaintiffs as independent contractors. The Operating Agreement and FedEx policies and procedures governed the drivers’ job requirements, wages and hours, equipment and appearance requirements, and outlined FedEx policies and expectations. The lower court granted summary judgment for FedEx, holding that the Plaintiffs were independent contractors as a matter of law. The Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who agreed that the Plaintiffs were employees as a matter of law and entered summary judgment in their favor as to employment status.

Slayman v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. dba FedEx Home Delivery
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case No. 12-35559

Facts:

This case actually was an appeal of 2 consolidated class action suits. Plaintiffs were former FedEx drivers representing a class of approximately 363 full-time delivery drivers for FedEx in Oregon between 1999 and 2009. FedEx and the Plaintiffs entered into an Operating Agreement which labeled Plaintiffs as independent contractors. The Plaintiffs claimed that they were improperly classified as independent contractors, and were thereby forced to incur business expenses and deprived other employee benefits under Oregon law. The Operating Agreement and FedEx policies and procedures governed the drivers’ job requirements, wages and hours, equipment and appearance requirements, and outlined FedEx policies and expectations. The lower court granted summary judgment for FedEx, holding that the Plaintiffs were independent contractors as a matter of law. The Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who agreed that the Plaintiffs were employees as a matter of law and entered summary judgment in their favor as to employment status.

Hattie Bonner v. Miami Dade Public Schools/Gallagher Bassett Services
Case No. 14-1200 (October 7, 2014)

Facts:

Claimant appealed an order of the JCC which denied her request for a $2,000.00 advance from the Employer/Carrier. The 1st DCA agreed that the JCC erred in denying the advance, and reversed and remanded the case with direction to award the advance.

Thomas Silvernail v. City of Tampa/Commercial Risk Management
Case No. 13-6203 (October 27, 2014)

Facts:

The Claimant appealed an Order of the JCC denying compensability of his bradycardia condition and payment of medical bills. At the motion for reconsideration, the Claimant raised estoppel for the first time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s