Donald E. Carlson v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc.
787 F.3d 1313
11th Cir.2015Background
- Florida FedEx drivers sue FedEx in 2005 asserting statutory and common-law claims including misclassification and false information provided.
- MDL consolidated actions across states; class certified in the MDL court based on Florida law control over drivers' work.
- MDL court granted FedEx summary judgment on employee/independent contractor status using nationwide Operating Agreement and standard practices.
- District court later resolved individual claims for Harting and Mosher in FedEx’s favor; Florida drivers appeal.
- Court adopts Florida Restatement framework for employment status; analyzes contract language vs. control under totality of circumstances.
- Court holds genuine issues of material fact exist on whether drivers are employees or independent contractors; affirms in part, reverses in part and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Florida drivers employees or independent contractors? | Operating Agreement labels IC status; FedEx control alleged via practices. | Operating Agreement and FedEx practices show control insufficient for employee status. | Genuine issue of material fact; status must be decided by trier of fact. |
| Did Del Pilar govern the outcome on control and status? | Del Pilar supports finding control issues material to status. | Del Pilar’s reasoning not dispositive; depends on case-specific facts. | Del Pilar informs, but not dispositive; summary judgment reversed on status. |
| Did Mosher and Harting have standing or damages-based grounds to grant summary judgment? | Mosher/Harting asserted damages/standing under multiple grounds. | District court alternative grounds support dismissal on standing/damages. | Affirmed on standing/damages grounds; Mosher/Harting claims barred on those bases. |
| What law governs classification and assignment issues given choice-of-law provisions? | Florida law controls employee/contractor analysis for Florida drivers. | Pennsylvania law governs assignment and related issues per contract choice-of-law. | Given conventional analysis, Pennsylvania law governs assignment; Florida law governs status analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kendall, 88 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1956) (control over means vs. results governs status; illustrates nuanced IC vs employee outcome)
- Keith v. News & Sun Sentinel Co., 667 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1995) (Restatement framework; totality of circumstances governs status)
- Del Pilar v. DHL Global Customer Solutions (USA), Inc., 993 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (detailed contract and practices can raise jury question on IC vs employee)
- Justice v. Belford Trucking Co., Inc., 272 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1972) (contract language vs. actual control; real-world supervision can show employee status)
- In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Emp’t Practices Litig., 734 F. Supp. 2d 557 (N.D. Ind. 2010) (district court analysis of Operating Agreement and practices in IC vs employee context)
- In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Emp’t Practices Litig., 758 F. Supp. 2d 638 (N.D. Ind. 2010) (additional MDL analysis applying Florida law factors to status determination)
- Justice v. Belford Trucking Co., Inc., 272 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1972) (employee status despite independent contractor labeling; comprehensive fact-pattern)