Hubchak v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
3:19-cv-00235
S.D. Ill.Jul 31, 2019Background
- Decedent Khvicha Gogoladze was a truck driver for Flamingo Trucking; he slept in the truck’s sleeper berth while co-employee Ivan Koudla drove. Both drivers died after a collision and subsequent fire.
- Gogoladze’s estate sued Flamingo and others; Flamingo moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- Flamingo argued the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (IWCA) provides the exclusive remedy for the estate’s tort claims (respondeat superior, negligence, negligent hiring).
- Central legal question: whether a driver who is sleeping in the sleeper berth is acting “in the course of employment” such that IWCA exclusivity applies.
- Federal DOT and DOL regulations diverge: DOT treats sleeper-berth rest as off-duty for safety/regulatory purposes; DOL presumes sleeping time is compensable work time absent an agreement to the contrary.
- The complaint alleges facts (common ownership, payment by S&G Logistics) that, at the pleading stage, suffice to keep S&G in the case; the operating agreement was not before the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IWCA exclusivity bars tort claims | Estate: IWCA may not apply because factual question whether sleeping in sleeper berth was within course of employment | Flamingo: IWCA exclusively precludes common-law tort claims for workplace injuries | Denied dismissal; whether sleeper-berth rest is within employment is unresolved and merits further briefing/evidence |
| Which federal regulatory scheme governs compensability of sleeper-berth time | Estate: DOL regulation governs compensability under IWCA | Flamingo: DOT regulations showing off-duty status should control | Court applies DOL interpretation for compensation questions (DOL better addresses pay/compensation) but leaves factual contract question open |
| Whether parties can contract around DOL presumption | Estate: Not addressed in detail; fact question whether any contract so provided | Flamingo: May rely on contractual terms to show time was off-duty | Court: Permits possibility of contractual waiver; absence of contract facts in complaint prevents dismissal |
| Dismissal of S&G Logistics | Estate: Alleged S&G had same owners and paid Gogoladze, potentially liable | Flamingo/S&G: S&G had no involvement and was not party to FedEx operating agreement | Court: Denies dismissal as complaint alleges sufficient facts to implicate S&G at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim to avoid dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts must draw reasonable inferences and require factual plausibility)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (accept allegations in the complaint as true on a motion to dismiss)
- EEOC v. Concentra Health Servs., 496 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2007) (pleading standard discussion in Seventh Circuit)
- Dunn v. Peabody Coal Co., 855 F.2d 426 (7th Cir. 1988) (IWCA exclusivity applies when injury occurs in course of employment)
- Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transportation, 840 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2016) (federal regulation of interstate trucking; DOT rules focus on safety rather than compensation)