Edward Slayman v. Fedex Ground Package System
765 F.3d 1033
9th Cir.2014Background
- FedEx Ground contracts with drivers to deliver packages; drivers wear FedEx uniforms, use FedEx vehicles, and follow appearance standards set by FedEx; FedEx controls when and what packages are delivered, and may require consent to hire helpers across routes.
- Two Oregon classes (Slayman and Leighter) allege they are employees, not independent contractors, under Oregon law, seeking wage-related and other relief.
- OA (Operating Agreement) and FedEx policies give FedEx substantial control over drivers’ appearance, equipment, routes, hours, workloads, and service areas.
- The MDL Court certified classes and damages/injunctive relief claims; district court later granted summary judgment for FedEx on status, while class certification for prospective relief was contested.
- The court analyzes under Oregon’s right-to-control and economic-realities tests, concluding drivers are employees as a matter of law and remanding for summary judgment accordingly; it reverses MDL’s class certification for prospective relief.
- FedEx appeals on standing and reliance on individualized evidence, arguing for broader reversal, which the court rejects in part and grants relief on employment status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employment status under Oregon law | Slayman/Leighter: drivers are employees under right-to-control | FedEx: OA shows independent contractor status | Employees under both tests; summary judgment for plaintiffs granted |
| Standing for prospective relief | Leighter had standing; Slayman lacked standing | Named plaintiffs lack standing to seek prospective relief | Slayman lacking standing; Leighter moot for prospective relief; MDL class certification reversed for prospective relief |
| Class certification and use of evidence | Common proof supports class; not limited to individualized proof | Necessity of individualized proof to defeat class claims | Reversed MDL’s certification for prospective relief; affirmed remand on status |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowser v. State Indus. Accident Comm’n, 185 P.2d 891 (Or. 1947) (control over what load and where to deliver indicates employee status)
- Rubalcaba v. Oregonian Publ’g Co., 43 P.3d 1101 (Or. 2002) (control over loading processes supports employee status)
- Jenkins v. AAA Heating & Cooling, Inc., 421 P.2d 971 (Or. 1966) (salespeople set own hours/routes; independent contractors)
- Collins v. Anderson, 596 P.2d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. 1979) (helper choice subject to employer approval; employee status)