405 F.Supp.3d 149
D. Mass.
2019
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiff Djamel Ouadani performed Google Express deliveries (Mar–Aug 2016) after contracting with Selwyn & Bertha LLC (S&B), one of the companies Dynamex used to supply drivers. S&B classified drivers as independent contractors.
  • Dynamex (now TForce Final Mile) contracted with Google to supply drivers; Dynamex itself contracted mostly with “Masters” and “Agents” who in turn supplied “Indirect Drivers.” Masters supplied most drivers; Agents supplied a small subset used for overflow.
  • Dynamex required common onboarding: Google-designed classroom training (Intrepid), online training (Marshall), on-road orientation, background/drug checks (for Masters’ drivers), Google/Dynamex email accounts and equipment, shift assignments via the Google app, uniform/badge requirements, and DECS-recorded per-shift payments and deductions.
  • Ouadani sued asserting Massachusetts misclassification and wage-act claims (class claims for Counts I–II) and FLSA/other claims; he moved to certify a class of Indirect Drivers and for partial summary judgment on misclassification (Count I).
  • The court granted class certification in part—certifying a class of Indirect Drivers who (1) performed Google Express deliveries July 16, 2014–Oct 14, 2016, (2) were associated with a Master independent contractor, and (3) were not W‑2 employees of their Master—but excluded drivers supplied by Agents and known W‑2 employees of Masters.
  • The court denied Ouadani’s motion for partial summary judgment on misclassification, finding genuine disputes of material fact (especially about contractual control and factual control questions) requiring trial.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Class certification — numerosity & commonality Ouadani: 130 Indirect Drivers; common policies (training, scheduling, uniforms) permit classwide proof of misclassification Dynamex: variation among Masters/Agents and drivers defeats commonality Numerosity and commonality satisfied for proposed class after trimming (exclude Agents and known W‑2s)
Class certification — predominance & damages Ouadani: common DECS records and Deduction Agreements allow common liability and damages proof; Masters/Agents merely passed through payments/deductions Dynamex: two‑tier model and varied Master/Agent compensation schemes create individualized liability and damages issues Predominance satisfied for class limited to Master‑associated, non‑W‑2 Indirect Drivers; court accepts inference that many deductions were passed through but allows decertification later if damages discovery undermines that inference
Summary judgment — Prong A (contractual and factual control under Mass. Gen. Laws ch.149 §148B) Ouadani: Dynamex exercised contractual and actual control (recruiting, background checks, training, shift assignments, routing, equipment/uniforms, deductions) so as a matter of law drivers are employees Dynamex: many controls derived from Google or Masters; relevant contracts are driver–Master and Master–Dynamex contracts (not SOW with Google); factual disputes exist Summary judgment denied — disputes about contractual control and factual control (and contradictions in affidavits/deposition evidence) preclude deciding misclassification as a matter of law
Ascertainability & class definition Ouadani: class is objectively definable by Dynamex records (DECS) and status with Masters Dynamex: challenges based on heterogeneity of relationships Class is ascertainable; court’s modifications use objective criteria (Master vs Agent; W‑2 status)

Key Cases Cited

  • Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (commonality requires common answers)
  • Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (rigorous Rule 23 analysis; predominance/cohesion)
  • Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (classwide common proof may satisfy predominance despite individual damages)
  • Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (court must ensure class methodology matches claims)
  • Sebago v. Boston Cab Dispatch, Inc., 28 N.E.3d 1139 (Mass. law presumes employee status; employer must satisfy all prongs)
  • Somers v. Converged Access, Inc., 911 N.E.2d 739 (Mass. Independent Contractor Statute interpretation)
  • Chambers v. RDI Logistics, Inc., 65 N.E.3d 1 (Mass. law on independent contractor factors)
  • Mass. Delivery Ass'n v. Healey, 821 F.3d 187 (First Circuit: Prong B preempted by FAAAA for delivery businesses)
  • Schwann v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 813 F.3d 429 (First Circuit on FAAAA preemption and delivery relationships)
  • DaSilva v. Border Transfer of MA, Inc., 296 F. Supp. 3d 389 (D. Mass. case certifying driver class on similar control evidence)
  • Smilow v. Southwestern Bell Mobile Sys., Inc., 323 F.3d 32 (individual damages issues do not necessarily defeat predominance)
Read the full case