CARLENE M. CRAIG, et al., Plaintiffs -- Appellants, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant -- Appellee.

CARLENE M. CRAIG, et al., Plaintiffs -- Appellants, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant -- Appellee.

Opinion

PER CURIAM. 

FedEx Ground ("FedEx") provides small package pick -- up and delivery services through a network of pick -- up and delivery drivers. The plaintiffs are current and former drivers for FedEx who allege that they were employees rather than independent contractors under the laws of the states in which they worked and under federal law. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these actions and transferred them to the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. That court used the Carlene M. Craig, et al. case, which was based on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and Kansas law, as its "lead" case. The court certified a nationwide class seeking relief under ERISA and certified statewide classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(3). ¹ The Kansas class has 479 members. They allege that they were improperly classified as independent contractors rather than employees under the Kansas Wage Payment Act ("KWPA" or "Act"), Kan. Stat. Ann. § § 44 -- 313 et seq., and that as employees, they are entitled to repayment of all costs and expenses they paid during their time as FedEx employees. They also seek payment of overtime wages. 

Cross summary judgment motions presented the question of whether the FedEx drivers are employees or independent contractors under the KWPA. The evidence presented through the competing motions essentially comprised a stipulated record revolving around a form Operating Agreement FedEx entered with each of the class members and certain FedEx work practices. FedEx asserted that the undisputed facts before the district court must result in a determination that the drivers are not employees under the KWPA. The drivers contended that the same record required the court to find that they are employees under that Act or, in the alternative, that the undisputed evidence, along with reasonable inferences that could be drawn from it, entitled them to a trial on that question. In a thorough opinion and order, the district court granted FedEx summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs summary judgment, effectively deciding that they could not prevail on their claims. In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 734 F. Supp. 2d 557 (N.D. Ind. 2010). The court then drew on its decision in Craig and ruled in FedEx's favor on summary judgment on the question of the plaintiffs' employment status in the other cases. In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Emp't Practices Litig., 758 F. Supp. 2d 638 (N.D. Ind. 2010). Judgments and amended judgments were entered. 

Twenty -- one cases are on appeal. They present substantially the same issue: whether the district court erred by deciding as a matter of law that the certified classes of plaintiffs were independent contractors and thus could not prevail on their claims. Each case, however, arises under a different state's substantive law. The parties proposed that we begin with the Craig appeal and stay the remaining appeals, proceeding as the district court did. We suspended briefing in the other appeals pending further order and now address the Craig appeal. Rather than repeat the district court's detailed explication of the relevant undisputed facts set forth in "Section I. Common Facts Applicable to Right to Control," of its opinion, see In re FedEx Ground, 734 F. Supp. 2d at 560 -- 75, we expressly adopt and incorporate it here. 

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.