## Facts

- A certified class of about 2,300 full-time California FedEx delivery drivers worked between 2000 and 2007 under written Operating Agreements that labeled them “independent contractors.”
- The drivers alleged FedEx misclassified them, leading to violations of the California Labor Code (and related claims premised on employee status).
- FedEx required drivers to wear FedEx uniforms and meet FedEx grooming and appearance standards.
- Drivers had to use FedEx-approved vehicles meeting detailed specifications, painted in “FedEx white,” and displaying FedEx logos; drivers paid for purchase and maintenance.
- FedEx determined what packages drivers would deliver, and on which days and at what times, structuring drivers’ daily work.
- FedEx managers supervised performance through ride-along evaluations and monitored detailed aspects of service.
- The Operating Agreement stated drivers controlled the “manner and means” of meeting business goals, but FedEx policies and practices imposed detailed operational requirements.
- Drivers could potentially hire helpers or operate multiple routes, but only with FedEx’s approval; the work performed was central to FedEx’s package-delivery business and commonly performed under renewable, long-term arrangements.

## Issues

1. Under California’s common-law right-to-control test, whether the drivers were employees or independent contractors as a matter of law.
2. Whether summary judgment should be entered for FedEx or for the driver class on the employee-status question.
3. If employee-status summary judgment for FedEx were reversed, whether class certification should also be reversed.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for FedEx and reversed the denial of the drivers’ partial summary judgment motion on employment status.
- The court held the drivers were employees as a matter of law under California’s right-to-control test.
- The case was remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for the drivers on the employment-status issue.
- The court rejected FedEx’s conditional cross-appeal seeking reversal of class certification.

## Legal Principles

- Under California law (Borello), the primary inquiry is whether the hiring entity has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the work, not merely the end result.
- Contractual labels describing workers as “independent contractors” are not dispositive; courts assess the relationship as a whole, including actual contractual rights and operational policies.
- Secondary indicia relevant to classification include, among others, the right to discharge, distinct occupation, supervision, skill required, provision of tools, duration, method of payment, whether the work is part of the principal’s regular business, and the parties’ stated intent.
- Where material facts about contractual rights and operational control are undisputed, employment classification may be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

Applying Borello, the Ninth Circuit concluded FedEx retained extensive control over the manner and means of package delivery through detailed appearance, vehicle, scheduling, and supervision requirements, making the California driver class employees as a matter of law despite independent-contractor language and limited, FedEx-approved opportunities to hire helpers or add routes.


Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2014)