Anfinson v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM
244 P.3d 32
Wash. Ct. App.2010Background
- Anfinson and two other FedEx drivers led a class action on behalf of about 320 drivers seeking overtime under Washington MWA and uniform reimbursement under IWA for the class period Dec 21, 2001–Dec 31, 2005.
- FedEx classified drivers as independent contractors; plaintiffs allege they are employees for MWA purposes and seek overtime and fees.
- The trial court bifurcated liability and damages; the liability phase ended with a verdict that drivers are independent contractors, leading to dismissal of the class claims.
- The central liability issue was the correct jury standard for distinguishing employees from independent contractors under the MWA; the court fashioned Instruction 9.
- The court acknowledged the MWA is patterned on the FLSA and that Washington’s interpretation should consider federal economic realities factors, as weight given by DLI; this approach was later overturned due to instructional error.
- The case proceeded on appeal to review the jury instructions and related matters, resulting in partial reversal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper standard to distinguish employee vs. independent contractor under the MWA? | Anfinson argues economic realities test should govern. | FedEx contends right-to-control test should govern. | Instruction 9 mis-stated the standard; economic realities test governs. |
| Was Instruction 9 prejudicial and legally incorrect? | Instruction 9 improperly made right-to-control determinative and mixed tests. | Instruction 9 reasonably incorporated relevant factors. | Yes, instruction was prejudicial and legally incorrect; reversible error. |
| Should DLI's six-factor economic realities rubric control? | Six-factor test aligns with FLSA-based MWA interpretation. | DLI's rubric is persuasive but not dispositive. | DLI's six-factor economic realities test is persuasive and adopted as proper standard. |
| May evidence of representative class members be used to prove liability? | Representative evidence can prove pattern and practice for liability. | Caution against overreliance on individualized evidence. | Instruction 8 improper; need remand to address evidentiary approach. |
| Was the jury verdict form proper on employment status? | Status should be determined by jury under proper instructions. | Status can be decided via verdict form. | verdict form appropriate; status remained a jury question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stahl v. Delicor of Puget Sound, Inc., 148 Wash.2d 876 (2003) (MWA relies on FLSA; broad employee definition; reasoning on economic realities)
- Inniss v. Tandy Corp., 141 Wash.2d 517 (2000) (FLSA-based interpretation and remedial purpose of MWA)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946) (Burden of proof for unpaid wages inferred from evidence)
- Sureway Cleaners, 656 F.2d 1370 (9th Cir. 1981) (Economic realities factors applied in federal circuits)
- Bartels v. Birmingham, 332 U.S. 126 (1947) (Initial employee/independent contractor distinctions; remedial statutes)