Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Layton v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.

Layton v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

July 9, 2012, Decided; July 9, 2012, Filed

No. 11-12532

Opinion

 [*1173]  WILSON, Circuit Judge:

Leandre Layton, on behalf of himself and the similarly-situated members of his conditionally-certified class (collectively, "Drivers"), appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of DHL Express, Inc. ("DHL") on his claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. After a thorough examination of the realities of the  [**2] economic relationship between Drivers and DHL, we affirm on the grounds that DHL is not a joint employer of Drivers.

DHL is a provider of shipping and logistic services. In some parts of the country, DHL hires third-party contractors who employ couriers to deliver DHL's packages. Between 2005 and 2009, DHL utilized Sky Land Express, Inc. ("Sky Land") as such a contractor in Alabama. Sky Land worked out of three warehouse locations in the state: Birmingham, Jasper, and Tuscaloosa. The relationship between DHL and Sky Land was governed by a Cartage Agreement that stated that Sky Land was an independent contractor of DHL and specified Sky Land's contractual duties. Drivers were employed by Sky Land and served mainly as delivery couriers, although some also acted as supervisors, dispatchers, and shuttle drivers. Sky Land owned the vehicles that Drivers used to deliver packages; DHL owned the warehouse facilities and all other equipment.

Every morning, DHL had packages delivered to the Birmingham warehouse. Drivers could not begin work until a DHL employee informed them that those packages had been received and coded and were ready for pick-up. After receiving the go-ahead, Drivers sorted,  [**3] scanned, and loaded the packages. Sky Land leased the necessary scanners from DHL. As Drivers  [*1174]  loaded their vehicles at the warehouse, a DHL employee would often inspect Drivers' vehicles and uniforms to ensure that they conformed to the standards specified in the Cartage Agreement. The uniforms and the vehicles bore the names of both DHL and Sky Land.

Drivers delivered some packages straight from the Birmingham warehouse to customers; the rest of the packages were shuttled to the Tuscaloosa and Jasper warehouses, retrieved by Drivers, and then delivered. Drivers spent the majority of their days making pick-ups and deliveries in their vehicles. Throughout the day, DHL sent information regarding customer complaints, requests for re-deliveries, and other non-routine matters to Drivers. As Drivers worked, they used the scanners to log the time at which each package was picked up or delivered. When Drivers had completed their delivery routes for the day, they unloaded any remaining packages at one of the warehouses and returned their scanners to be charged overnight. At that time, the information that the scanner had collected during the day about package locations was transmitted to a DHL  [**4] data server.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

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

686 F.3d 1172 *; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13978 **; 162 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P36,035; 19 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 513; 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1277; 2012 WL 2687961

LEANDRE LAYTON, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., Defendant - Appellee, SKY LAND EXPRESS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. D.C. Docket No. 2:08-cv-01542-WMA.

Layton v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164125 (N.D. Ala., May 3, 2011)

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

Drivers, packages, supervision, factors, warehouse, employees, delivery, hire, district court, joint employer, contractor, scanners, farm, regulations, facilities, indirectly, joint-employment, agricultural, independent contractor, ownership, depends, weighs, tasks, grant of summary judgment, employment relationship, labor contractor, conditions, oversight, customer, loading

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Labor & Employment Law, Wage & Hour Laws, Scope & Definitions, Definition of Employ, Definition of Employers