Background

• Lasership contracts with Massachusetts-based independent drivers to deliver packages; the company uses ICAs and drivers are not paid benefits or overtime.
• Plaintiffs, Massachusetts delivery drivers, allege misclassification under Massachusetts Independent Contractor Statute M.G.L. 149 § 148B targeting motor carriers.
• Defendant Lasership moves for summary judgment seeking FAAAA preemption of §148B as applied to motor carriers.
• Court previously allowed discovery on preemption; this matter resolves whether §148B is preempted and grants summary judgment.
• §148B imposes a three-prong test for independent contractor status, including the unusual “usual course of business” prong, which the Court finds restrictive.
• Enforcement forecloses Lasership’s ability to use independent contractors, potentially altering routes, services, and prices, thereby triggering FAAAA preemption.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Rowe v. N.H. Motor Transp. Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364 (2008) (state law affecting prices/routes/services may be preempted if significant)
• Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (preemption where state guidelines bind airline fares; broad ‘relate to’ standard)
• American Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 660 F.3d 384 (9th Cir. 2011) (courts examine effect on carrier services; state measures inconsistent with federal objectives preempted)
• Mendonca v. California, 152 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 1998) (wage laws not preempted unless directly/indirectly affect prices in a manner consistent with Rowe/ Morales)
• Flores-Galarza v. United Parcel Serv., 318 F.3d 323 (1st Cir. 2003) (preemption where cost impacts operations and pricing align with preemption scope)
• S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Transport Corp. of America, 697 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2012) (reliance on Mendonca; not persuasive here)