245 F. Supp. 3d 268
D. Mass.2017Background
- Spirit Delivery & Distribution Services is a broker that contracts with motor carriers/contractors (drivers) to perform home-delivery services for retailers (e.g., Macy’s); Spirit requires contractors to sign a Carrier Contract and, in many cases, to incorporate.
- Civil (plaintiff) worked for Spirit through Civil Delivery LLC; Spirit set performance metrics, required background checks, enforced truck specifications, and used customer-mandated tablets/GPS to track routes and times.
- Spirit paid drivers per stop, made deductions for missed windows or damages, and retained rights to disqualify drivers and terminate for poor performance.
- Civil sued under the Massachusetts Wage Act (independent-contractor provision, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 149, § 148B) claiming misclassification, unlawful wage deductions, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit; Spirit asserted FAAAA preemption and other defenses.
- Court addressed class-certification, cross-motions for summary judgment, and Civil’s motion for partial summary judgment; court certified a class, held Prong 2 of §148B preempted by the FAAAA (per First Circuit), found Prongs 1 and 3 not preempted, granted summary judgment for Spirit on equitable claims, and denied Civil’s partial summary judgment on employee status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FAAAA preempts the MWA independent-contractor statute (Prong 1, 2, 3) | Civil: MWA not preempted; all prongs apply; Spirit cannot satisfy three-prong test | Spirit: FAAAA preempts MWA because state rules significantly affect carriers’ prices, routes, services | Prong 2 is preempted (First Circuit precedent). Prongs 1 and 3 are not preempted. |
| Whether Civil’s unjust enrichment & quantum meruit claims survive | Civil: equitable claims available in alternative to statutory relief | Spirit: equitable claims preempted by FAAAA or barred because adequate legal remedy exists | Court: equitable claims dismissed (summary judgment for Spirit) because MWA remedies (Prongs 1 & 3 surviving) provide adequate legal remedy. |
| Whether Civil is entitled to partial summary judgment that he is an employee under §148B | Civil: undisputed facts show Spirit controlled him and he lacked an independent business | Spirit: factual disputes exist about control, routes, loading, and other indicia of independence | Court: denied Civil’s partial SJ — genuine issues of material fact (control/prong 1 and factual disputes) for jury. |
| Whether class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 is appropriate | Civil: classwide proof will resolve employment-status common question and damages; class is numerous and superior | Spirit: individualized inquiries (corporate status, different customers/requirements, deductions) defeat commonality/predominance/typicality | Court: granted class certification under Rule 23(b)(3); common issues predominate despite some individual issues; named plaintiff and counsel adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. RDI Logistics, Inc., 476 Mass. 95 (Mass. 2016) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court construing §148B and severability of prongs)
- Schwann v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 813 F.3d 429 (1st Cir. 2016) (First Circuit: Prong 2 of Massachusetts-style employee test preempted by FAAAA)
- DaSilva v. Border Transfer of MA, Inc., 227 F.3d 154 (D. Mass.) (district court analysis of FAAAA preemption in MWA context; discussed severability and prong analysis)
- Costello v. BeavEx, Inc., 810 F.3d 1045 (7th Cir. 2016) (Seventh Circuit holding Illinois three‑prong test not preempted by FAAAA; considered in comparative analysis)
- Mass. Delivery Ass’n v. Coakley, 769 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2014) (First Circuit discussion of FAAAA preemption scope and evaluation approach)
- Ruggiero v. American United Life Ins. Co., 137 F. Supp. 3d 104 (D. Mass. 2015) (analysis of prong 1 and prong 3 factors for independent-contractor status)