Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
174 Wash. 2d 851
| Wash. | 2012Background
- 320 FedEx Ground drivers alleged overtime under the MWA and uniform expense reimbursement under the IWA.
- Case contested whether drivers are employees or independent contractors under Washington law.
- Jury found drivers were independent contractors; trial court had given a hybrid instruction emphasizing right to control with economic-dependence factors.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding Instruction 9 mis-stated the standard and Instruction 8 was misleading and prejudicial.
- Washington MWA is remedial and modeled on the FLSA; key issue centered on which economic-test applies under the MWA.
- Supreme Court granted review to resolve which standard governs employee status under the MWA and the related evidentiary instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs employee status under the MWA? | Anfinson argues the economic-dependence test should apply. | FedEx argues the right-to-control test should control. | Economic-dependence test controls. |
| Are the jury instructions properly stating commonality and class evidence under the MWA? | Instruction 8 misleads about commonality and permits representative evidence. | Instruction 8 is permissible; focus is on class-wide issues. | Instruction 8 reversible error; Instruction 9 also reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopkins v. Cornerstone American Ins. Co., 545 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2008) (adopts economic-dependence framework for FLSA-like inquiries)
- Ebling v. Gove's Cove, Inc., 34 Wn. App. 495 (1983) (employee vs independent contractor under Washington wage laws)
- Donovan v. Sureway Cleaners, 656 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1981) (six-factor economic-dependence test considered by courts)