Alexander v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.
765 F.3d 981
9th Cir.2014Background
- FedEx contracts California drivers as independent contractors under the Operating Agreement (OA) and related policies.
- The OA grants FedEx broad control over drivers’ appearance, vehicles, service areas, delivery standards, and performance evaluations.
- Drivers must use FedEx-approved vehicles, uniforms, scanners, and adhere to FedEx’s safety and service standards; FedEx determines service areas and delivery windows.
- Plaintiffs, about 2,300 full-time California drivers, allege they are employees and seek wage-related relief; the case spans FedEx Ground and FedEx Home Delivery.
- The MDL court in Indiana certified a California class and denied class-wide FMLA relief; this appeal addresses employment status under California law.
- California Borello multi-factor test governs employment status; the court held the drivers are employees as a matter of law based on FedEx’s control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Borello governs status in this case | Drivers are employees under Borello’s right-to-control factors. | OA reflects independent contractor status; entrepreneurial opportunities negate control. | Yes; drivers are employees as a matter of law. |
| Does FedEx have a right to control the manner and means | OA and policies give FedEx extensive control over appearance, hours, routes, and service standards. | Control is limited to results, not the means; drivers may choose how to perform. | FedEx has broad rights to control the manner and means; supports employee status. |
| Do entrepreneurial opportunities negate employee status under California law | Opportunity to own/operate routes and hire helpers suggests IC status. | Entrepreneurial opportunities do not override other Borello factors. | Entrepreneurial opportunities do not overcome control evidence; status remains employee. |
Key Cases Cited
- Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989) (all-necessary-control test for employee status)
- Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 154 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (employee status based on FedEx’s control over driver performance)
- Narayan v. EGL, Inc., 616 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2010) (entrepreneurial-opportunity analysis considered in context of Borello)
- Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., 754 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2014) (approval/disapproval of helpers and control over them informs status)
- JKH Enterprises, Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 563 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (all-necessary-control principle applied to drivers’ status)
- Air Couriers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 41 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (drivers performing FedEx-like duties viewed as employees where control is present)
- Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court, 269 Cal.Rptr. 647 (Cal. App. 1999) (controls-based test for employment status in California context)
- Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 59 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2014) (applies Borello’s control framework beyond workers’ compensation)