We have filed a number of lawsuits against FedEx Ground and Home Delivery for misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors.  These lawsuits are entering a critical stage.  For an update on the litigation, see the links below. 

We want to hear from FedEx drivers about your experiences with FedEx, and keep in touch about the progress of the cases.  If you have any questions, please contact Scott Simpson, ssimpson@llrlaw.com.

On August 12, 2010, the federal court in Indiana, Judge Robert Miller, issued a ruling in the Kansas case, granting FedEx’s motion for summary judgment and declaring drivers in Kansas to be independent contractors.  The lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the consolidated national litigation plan to appeal this decision.  However, this decision has no effect on the cases we have filed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont.  In fact, we received good news on these cases the following day, August 13, 2010, when Judge Miller ruled that he will send back these and several other cases to their home courts for further proceedings. 

In issuing the Kansas decision, Judge Miller analyzed the so-called “right of control” test, which he found applies in 28 states.  However, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont have a different test for determining independent contractor status, the so-called “ABC test”, under which the alleged employer must prove all three prongs of a stringent three-part test.  (We have won a number of cases in Massachusetts under this test, declaring workers to be employees though they were classified as independent contractors.) 

We are still pursuing our motions for summary judgment in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont based on this more stringent test and are seeking legal rulings that FedEx drivers are employees in these states.  We are optimistic about these motions back in their home states, which is bolstered by the fact that Judge Miller granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs in the Illinois case, which has a similar “ABC test.” 

Please note that these cases in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont were not certified as class actions by Judge Miller and so, in order to participate in the litigation and recover a portion of any judgment or settlement we may obtain, you must sign on individually to join the cases.  Please contact our paralegal Scott Simpson at (617) 994-5800, or ssimpson@llrlaw.com, for information on joining the cases, or return this form to our office and we will send you the necessary paperwork.  We have recently filed a new class action complaint adding dozens of additional drivers in Massachusetts, and we are in the process of filing new complaints in Connecticut and Vermont as well.

In July, FedEx announced that it is changing its business model in Massachusetts, Vermont, and several other states to require that all drivers become multi-route drivers (or drive for multi-route drivers) or face termination. We do not believe this change in FedEx’s business model relieves the company of liability under the Massachusetts Independent Contractor statute.  All drivers will continue to be FedEx’s employees even under this new model, and we have filed a new lawsuit against FedEx challenging this change.  In connection with this transition, FedEx has also offered current drivers a modest payment in exchange for signing a release of certain claims.  This release may significantly impact your rights.  If you are a current driver, we advise that you not sign a release before considering your options.  We are advising drivers regarding their options and encourage you to call us to discuss this as well as the impact the business model change will have on you.  Please contact our paralegal Scott Simpson right away, at (617) 994-5800, or ssimpson@llrlaw.com, or read our update letter to current FedEx drivers regarding the ISP conversion.

On July 15, 2010, FedEx announced that it reached a $3 million settlement with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office to settle claims that FedEx’s misclassification of drivers cost the Commonwealth revenues from payroll taxes, worker’s compensation, and unemployment assistance.  This settlement does not affect the private claims we have brought for FedEx drivers, which are still being actively litigated. 

Suit claims FedEx is retaliating against Mass. Drivers
Law 360 | August, 2010

FedEx deal pays state, drivers
Worcester Telegram | July, 2010

Mass. reaches $3M settlement with FedEx Ground
Associated Press | July, 2010

Terminated FedEx driver featured in New York Times
(Sunday, April 20, 2008)
Read Steven Greenhouse’s profile of our client, Jean Capobianco, excerpted from his new book “The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker"

‘Independent contractor’ litigation heats up
Lawyers USA | April, 2008

Massachusetts Attorney General issues citations against FedEx, finds drivers to be employees

FedEx Cited For Misclassifying Mass. Drivers

California Supreme Court lets stand decision that FedEx drivers are employees

Multi-district litigation court in Indiana certifies national ERISA class and Kansas state law class action

Drivers sue FedEx, Adecco, and Kelly Services for failure to pay for overtime and all hours worked and failure to pay for training time
If you were paid through Adecco or Kelly Services as a FedEx temporary driver, or if you were not paid for your FedEx training, you may be eligible to join this lawsuit - please contact us right away for more information.

FedEx Ground battles to keep using contractors
Reuters | July, 2007

Arab-American drivers accuse FedEx bosses of discrimination
Boston Globe | July, 2007

Drivers win right to pursue discrimination case against FedEx
Associated Press | March, 2007

Teamsters Hope to Lure FedEx Drivers
New York Times | May, 2006

FedEx delivery drivers file suit
Boston Globe | May, 2006

Other rulings that FedEx drivers are employees