Reginald Gray v. FedEx Ground Package System
799 F.3d 995
8th Cir.2015Background
- Nine former FedEx Ground operators sued, alleging they were employees (not independent contractors) and were denied benefits; they had substantively identical operating agreements with FedEx.
- Agreements gave operators proprietary interests in territories (sale subject to FedEx approval), allowed hiring drivers (subject to FedEx qualifications), set contract terms (1–3 years) with termination for cause and discretionary non-renewal, and stated operators controlled the "manner and means" of deliveries.
- Plaintiffs point to FedEx requirements (vehicle specs and paint, logos, uniforms, inspections, background/drug checks, scanners, and oversight of delivery timing) as evidence of employee status. Many operators hired drivers and sold their territories.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment holding the plaintiffs were employees under Missouri law; a jury (instructed on that premise) found fraud and awarded damages; FedEx appealed the summary-judgment ruling.
- Missouri law treats employment status as a question of fact; the parties and court applied an eight-factor test (control, actual control, duration, right to discharge, payment method, equipment, whether work is employer’s regular business, and contract label).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were employees as a matter of Missouri law | Plaintiffs: contract terms and FedEx-imposed requirements show employee status | FedEx: contracts grant operators control, ability to hire drivers, proprietary route interests, and limited supervision—so status is not employee as a matter of law | Reversed district court: reasonable juries could find independent-contractor status; summary judgment for plaintiffs improper |
| Effect of contractual "manner and means" clause and operational controls | Plaintiffs: labels and FedEx rules show FedEx controlled manner and means | FedEx: clause plus rights to subcontract, sell routes, provide own vehicles, and limited ride-along supervision indicate independence | Court: these contract features create genuine dispute on the control factors; not a basis for summary judgment for plaintiffs |
| Significance of duration and business-nexus factors | Plaintiffs: multi-year continuous delivery indicates employee relationship | FedEx: longer-term engagements can still be independent-contractor arrangements | Court: duration and that delivery is FedEx’s regular business favor employee status, but alone insufficient to decide as a matter of law |
| Payment, equipment, and discharge terms' legal import | Plaintiffs: FedEx’s payment practices and provision of some items show employment | FedEx: hybrid per-stop payment, operators provided vehicles, and termination only for cause point to contractor status | Court: most factors (payment method, furnishing equipment, right to discharge, label) create a genuine factual dispute; summary judgment inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 592 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2010) (summary-judgment posture with mixed evidence required jury resolution of employment status)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing summary judgment and that credibility/weight are jury questions)
- Nunn v. C.C. Midwest, 151 S.W.3d 388 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (Missouri eight-factor test for employee vs. independent contractor)
- J.M. v. Shell Oil Co., 922 S.W.2d 759 (Mo. 1996) (touchstone is control or right to control the worker)
- Skidmore v. Haggard, 110 S.W.2d 726 (Mo. 1937) (ability to substitute other workers and sell route weigh against master-servant relationship)