Craig v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.
686 F.3d 423
7th Cir.2012Background
- FedEx Ground uses a network of drivers who allege they were employees, not independent contractors, under KWPA and federal wage laws.
- The Kansas class includes 479 members claiming unpaid wages, expenses, and overtime; actions were consolidated in Indiana federal court.
- The district court granted FedEx summary judgment on employment status, adopting prior Craig-based rulings, and certified nationwide/statewide classes.
- Twenty-one cases on appeal present a uniform issue: whether the district court erred in treating drivers as independent contractors.
- The Seventh Circuit adopted and incorporated undisputed facts from the district court, and chose to certify questions to the Kansas Supreme Court.
- The court acknowledged substantial uncertainty about how Kansas law would apply the right-of-control test and related factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the drivers employees under KWPA as a matter of law? | Drivers contend they meet KWPA’s broad employee definition. | FedEx argues drivers are independent contractors under KWPA. | Certification, not ruling on status, governs the issue. |
| Does having more than one service area alter the employee status? | Multiple service areas could affect control/determination of status. | Status remains dependent on governing contract and control, regardless of areas. | Certification addressing status with multiple service areas is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Knoble v. Nat’l Carriers, Inc., 510 P.2d 1274 (Kan. 1973) (right of control can establish employee status; no single rule governs)
- Anderson v. Kinsley Sand & Gravel, Inc., 558 P.2d 146 (Kan. 1976) (employee status where employer controls material aspects)
- Falls v. Scott, 815 P.2d 1104 (Kan. 1991) (right of control primary factor; weigh multiple factors)
- Watson v. W.S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co., 450 P.2d 10 (Kan. 1969) (driver subjects to company controls when delivering company products)
- Knoble and Crawford (Kan. Ct. App.), 845 P.2d 703 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989) (reasons for control matter; tensions in applying control test)
- Coma Corp. v. Kansas Dep’t of Labor, 154 P.3d 1080 (Kan. 2007) (policy aims to protect wages; KWPA interpretation tied to wage protection)
- Campbell v. Husky Hogs, LLC, 255 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2011) (KWPA construed with wage protection as a policy objective)