CARROW v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.
1:16-cv-03026
| D.N.J. | Dec 26, 2019Background
- Plaintiffs are New Jersey delivery drivers who contracted with FedEx Ground through corporate “Contracted Service Providers” (CSPs) and allege FedEx misclassified them as independent contractors, causing unlawful wage deductions under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (NJWPL).
- FedEx paid settlements to CSP entities (not individuals) and took itemized deductions (workers’ comp, insurance, business support charges) from those settlement payments.
- Plaintiffs’ theory on renewed class certification: the CSPs are a sham and the settlement payments were the drivers’ wages, so FedEx’s deductions from those settlements violated NJWPL if drivers were FedEx employees.
- The court treated the filing as a new Rule 23 motion (not a motion for reconsideration) because Plaintiffs advanced a different, clearer legal theory than before and applied the usual Rule 23 standard.
- The court found the proposed class ascertainable (scanner data can identify drivers working 30+ hours), satisfied Rule 23(a) requirements, concluded common evidence can resolve the ABC misclassification test and the fact of damages, and certified the class under Rule 23(b)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedural standard for renewed motion | Treat as a new Rule 23 motion because Plaintiffs present a different theory (CSPs are sham) | Motion is an untimely motion for reconsideration of the prior denial | Court treated it as a new Rule 23 motion and applied normal certification analysis |
| Ascertainability of class ("full-time") | Scanner records reliably identify drivers who worked ≥30 hours/week; Plaintiffs’ expert found 215 putative members | Scanner data may overcount time (breaks, personal errands); gaps could impede identification | Ascertainable: court adopts 30+ hours/week definition and finds scanner data administratively feasible |
| Predominance re: misclassification (NJ ABC test) | ABC prongs (control, course of business, independent business) are resolvable by common evidence (OA terms, FedEx policies, scanners, audits) | Prongs A and C require individualized inquiries into actual control and whether each driver ran an independent business | Predominance satisfied: common evidence can resolve prongs and ABC does not mandate individualized adjudication here |
| Predominance re: damages (deduction allocation) | Plaintiffs showed common fact of deductions from settlements for many class members; damages can be determined after liability | Damages may require complex individualized deduction-by-deduction and ownership/employment apportionment inquiries | Damages complexity does not defeat certification; common proof of liability/damages suffices and court can use post-liability tools (special master, subclasses, decertification) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hargrove v. Sleepy’s, LLC, 106 A.3d 449 (N.J. 2015) (announcing and explaining New Jersey’s ABC test for employee status)
- In re Pet Food Prod. Liab. Litig., 629 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 2010) (Rule 23 standards and requirements explained)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (requirement of rigorous analysis for class certification)
- Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012) (ascertainability as objective definition plus administrable identification)
- In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008) (courts must predict how issues will play out to determine predominance)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) (class predominance can be met even if individualized damage questions remain)
- Williams v. Jani‑King of Phila., Inc., 837 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2016) (right-of-control inquiry can be resolved by common contract evidence)
- Costello v. BeavEx, Inc., 810 F.3d 1045 (7th Cir. 2016) (misclassification prongs can be decided with common evidence)