Home
Home
Sitemap
Sitemap
Forums
Forums
Logout
Logout
 
Main Menu
 Public Areas
· Home
· Box Furniture
· Classifieds
· Contact
· Disaffected!
· FAQ
· Memberships
· Privacy Guide
· Recommend Us
· Register
· Search
· Site Status
· Stock Quote
· Surveys
· Terminology
· Terms of Use
· Web Links
· Login
 Member Areas
· Documents
· Forums
· Journal
· Private Messages
· Top Ranked
· Updated Topics
· Your Account
· Logout
Terms Accepted
Your IP 38.107.191.90
Login
Register
Lost Password


Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

New Members
Please welcome our new FedExaminer members:
· forrest364
· leda49k
· tonyatoddles
· Leftbehind
· SimpleSteve
· MaduroSmoke
· jimmy9finger
· rocnsol
· MLNO
· SlurpeeMan
· KookieMonst
· DrPaul
Site Indexed By
Google Visits
174269
Times
Yahoo Visits
177196
Times
Msn Visits
106893
Times
Jeeves Visits
31473
Times
Bing Visits
41877
Times
Security
You have been warned!
We have caught 58 hackers

NukeSentinel(tm)
FedEx Ground Class Action Lawsuit
FedExFEDEX GROUND PICKUP & DELIVERY DRIVERS FOUND TO BE EMPLOYEES NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS

On Monday, July 26, 2003, Judge Howard Schwab of Los Angeles Superior Court, Department F48, rendered his decision in the first phase of a bifurcated trial, after hearing nine weeks of testimony between April 16 and June 30, 2003, finding that the Plaintiffs/Class representatives Anthony Estrada and Jeffrey Morgan and those in the certified statewide class of several hundred single-route pickup and delivery drivers for Fed Ex Ground were and are employees rather than independent contractors, as FedEx Ground claims. More...

He also found, contrary to FedEx Ground's claim, that the drivers have not been indemnified for their work-related expenses. The court also found that the one named plaintiff who had two routes was an independent contractor. A copy of the court's decision can be found in our documents area.

At issue in the case, entitled Anthony Estrada v. FedEx Ground, Los Angeles Superior Court # BC 210130 is whether FedEx Ground violated California Labor Code Section 2802 and/or the California Unfair Business Practices Act by failing and refusing to reimburse the drivers for their work-related expenses, including the costs of their trucks, fuel, maintenance, scanners, uniforms, liability and workers compensation-like insurance, registration and license, and similar expenses required in order to work as pickup and delivery drivers for FedEx Ground. To be entitled to such reimbursement, the drivers were required by the Court to prove that they were employees under California law rather than independent contractors, as the company claimed.

The trial court issued a lengthy statement of decision outlining the reasons for the ruling, including the fact that the company exercised pervasive control, indeed “close to absolute actual control (p.4) over the drivers working conditions under the sixty-six page long form-contract that each driver had to sign. The court said that the Company had created an environment, where a terminal manager can blasphemously refer to himself as the Almighty and wield power accordingly. (P.10) The court also found that the drivers were fully integrated into the FedEx Ground delivery system - - essential to FEGs core business operation (p. 16) - - where they worked for many years for FedEx and FedEx alone. He also found that, contrary to what FedEx claimed at trial, the single-route drivers had a job, not a business and had no opportunity for profit or loss.

Plaintiff and class representative Anthony Estrada was thrilled with the Court's decision and explained "When I went to work for the Company, I had to purchase a $40,000 truck and have it specially painted with the Company's logo and advertising. I had to wear a Company-uniform, use the Company's scanner and paperwork and was told what to do by the Company's managers every day. Despite all that, the Company claimed we were independent contractors and required us to pay for the company's truck, fuel, maintenance, insurance and other expenses. This was a scam that cost each driver thousands and thousands of dollars each year and every dollar we drivers paid was a dollar the Company saved by not paying its own expenses. The Court has now decided what we all knew in our hearts - - we were always employees, but we were forced to pay the company's expenses anyway."

Class counsel Lynn Rossman Faris said, The Court's landmark decision finally rights a long-standing wrong - - by mis-classifying their delivery drivers, FedEx Ground has forced its delivery drivers to pay the company's business expenses. While only directly applicable to California's single-route pickup and delivery drivers, the decision will have major impact around the country, where other class action cases are pending or contemplated. FedEx Ground is a multi-billion dollar company which has between 5,000 and 6,000 single-route pickup and delivery drivers it has mis-classified as independent contractors when they are clearly employees. FedEx Ground's sister company, FedEx Express has thousands of drivers who perform the same duties and are provided with a truck, fuel, insurance, uniforms and the like by the Company. There is simply no excuse for the unfair treatment of the FedEx Ground drivers who look like employees, act like employees and are treated by FedEx Ground like employees but are made to pay for the company's business expenses. This decision should serve as a warning to other major employers who use sham independent contractor arrangements for their own financial benefit - - calling them independent contractors, but treating them as employees to avoid paying their costs of doing business.

In 1998, FedEx purchased RPS, Inc., a company based in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, which opened its doors in 1985 in an effort to capture a share of the small package ground delivery market, classifying its pick-up and delivery drivers as "independent contractors" to avoid purchase of thousands of expensive trucks. When FedEx acquired RPS, Inc., it continued classifying the pick-up and delivery drivers as independent contractors on a national basis, even though FedEx Express, Inc., based in Memphis, Tennessee, has always classified its couriers as employees. In 2000, FedEx re-branded RPS, Inc. and since then has marketed its ground delivery service as FedEx Ground. FedEx Ground packages are transported between ground based hubs by tractor trailer, while FedEx Express transports packages by air. Otherwise, delivery functions of the FedEx Ground drivers and the FedEx Express couriers are the same.

The case will continue on to Phase II, when the court must still decide various pending issues, including what damages and/or restitution the class is entitled to and whether to issue injunctive and declaratory relief requested by the Plaintiffs.

Press release published with permssion from the law offices of Leonard Carder, LLP

Keywords: legal litigation lawsuit suit class action
Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 @ 15:24:58 MDT by Admin

FedEx Ground Class Action Lawsuit | Login/Create an Account | 18 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: FedEx Ground Class Action Lawsuit (Score: 1)
by frank on Saturday, September 04, 2004 @ 23:00:35 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

Does any one have anymore details about this law suit,I used to be a contractor at Fedex ground and home delivery and always thought that what they did to us was wrong.





Re: FedEx Ground Class Action Lawsuit (Score: 1)
by LAPRICE on Monday, September 20, 2004 @ 14:05:17 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

How does this affect Contractors in other states? They have desided that you are employees, now do you want reimbusment for the exspences discussed in the suit? And now what, are you wanting to be employees now like FexEX express or do you want to have more controle over you biz as Contractors. Please reply, the rest of us are wondering how this may effect us or does each state/terminal have to file a suit or does class action already include all of us





Re: FedEx Ground Class Action Lawsuit (Score: 1)
by mamasito on Sunday, October 17, 2004 @ 14:30:07 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

All FedEx Ground AND Home Delivery 'contractors' in every state should be filing a class action suit against this company. What what they have been getting away with for so many years has got to be illegal!





Re: FedEx Ground Class Action Lawsuit (Score: 1)
by LC on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 @ 12:57:06 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

Have these drivers lost their contracts over this case? Are they still running their routes? What happens to them now? Anyone with info please reply.




Re: FedEx Ground Class Action Lawsuit (Score: 1)
by Diacanthus on Saturday, November 13, 2004 @ 19:02:19 MST
(User Info | Send a Message)

I have recieved a newsletter from that stated that fedex has lost round 2 in california. In a 23 page decision the california court described the fedex contract as "a brilliantly drafted deception" . Our state, Montana, determined that the fedex contractual relationship was that of employer and employee, in which the contractor (employee) is forced into financing and underwriting fedex's expansion plans. It took only one disgruntled contractor to get everything rolling in montana. Just contact your state department of labor. The state had no difficulty in getting sworn depositions. No one has lost their contract. Some are now going after overtime and benefits owed them as employees. Fedex is obviously appealing.





Re: FedEx Ground Class Action Lawsuit (Score: 1)
by toddantc on Sunday, December 05, 2004 @ 07:25:08 MST
(User Info | Send a Message)

how do i sign up on this lawsuit?




Re: FedEx Ground Class Action Lawsuit (Score: 1)
by fedexxedbyrps on Monday, January 03, 2005 @ 22:21:20 MST
(User Info | Send a Message)

I would like to thank the FedExaminer for this web site. you have no idea how great this makes me feel to see what is going on across the U.S. I am sorry for those of you who are experiencing what I have but let me assure you that this website and your continued efforts to change this horrible system will make the difference.
Iam the other plaintiff in the Estrada v. FedExGround case and only learned of your website last week from our brilliant attorneyLynn who with Beth and their outstanding office staff defeated RPS/FedEX Ground
I was employed by RPS in 1993 I never missed a day of work, and was putting in 13 hour days and lying about it to protect the company , I missed the birth of one of my children and her heart procedure when she turned one, I was threaten that if I attended these events I was abondoning my contract and would lose my job and because I did not always see eye to eye with my terminal manager he decided to reconfigure my route in the last 2 months of my 5 year contract to assure I would fail. 6 years of 99.5% plus service, saftey awards, letters from corperate of how great I was doing 6 years of CCS bonuses without ever losing one, and with only a few words put on paper and a stroke of a pen from the T.M I was non renewed. the big dogs never even questioned his reasons but rather accepted them and agreed to the non renewal. Imagine that, a person considered to be in business for himself is told by his terminal manager he is out of business. I know there are many of you out there with stories like mine and I can honestly say I know how and what you are feeling about what this company has done to our lives but let me assure you changes are comming.
6 long years ago Tony and I set out to get back at these guys for what they put us through while we were there and how they showed their grattitude to us for all that we have done for them by non renewing our contracts. We hope our decision is only the first to come and sends the message to these A_ _ H_ _ _ _ it/s time to stop screwing people and its time to get what is owed to all of us. I wish every one of you good luck in the future to those who are suing the pants off of these guys and to those of you who are just looking for change.

stay strong
fedexxedbyrps





Re: FedEx Ground Class Action Lawsuit (Score: 1)
by daisyifido on Thursday, January 27, 2005 @ 21:29:51 MST
(User Info | Send a Message)

Hey Guys!
I Love Your sight and agree with the lawsuit completely. We have been contractors with FedEx Ground for over 10 years. We pay all the taxes on the guy who works for us, OUR EMPLOYEE. We have had 2 routes for 8 years you can imagine all the self employment taxes we have paid over the years. If we recognize our employee, because we don't want any trouble with the IRS, what is stopping them from the same trouble. PLEASE let me know how we can be in on this class action.




Re: FedEx Ground Class Action Lawsuit (Score: 1)
by cabinman on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 @ 23:06:12 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

We need legal help now! Gas prices are close to leaving me and my family with nothing! I see no help, no bulletins no nothing on how> or if fedx will help us with these gas bills. independent contractor sinking!! WE do not see ups, dhl , usps,
even our own overnite express delivery going down like this!




Re: FedEx Ground Class Action Lawsuit (Score: 1)
by mineand on Sunday, October 02, 2005 @ 19:00:28 MDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

I would like too communicate with some of the individuals involved in the above lawsuit and others that have been filed in other states.
Thanks




 
Related Links
· More about FedEx
· News by Admin


Most read story about FedEx:
FedEx Ground Class Action Lawsuit

Article Rating
Average Score: 4.68
Votes: 146


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad

Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly



This website is not owned by FedEx Corporation or any of its employees.
FedEx and Kinko's are registered trademarks of FedEx Corporation. The use of registered trademarks within the domain or on this site is made for a legitimate noncommercial fair use, to wit, for the publication of information that reasonably qualifies as free speech in order to encourage public discussion, information and debate, and without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Comments & submissions are property of the author. All other material © 2004-2009 by FedExaminer. Modified theme by Nukemods.

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2004 by Francisco Burzi.
This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
Page Generation: 0.11 Seconds