From our private database of 36,900+ case briefs...
Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
765 F.3d 981 (2014)
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (defendant) classified its delivery drivers as independent contractors. FedEx signed an operating agreement with each driver that governed the parties’ relationship. Generally, the agreement stated the parties' business goals and said that “the manner and means of reaching” those goals were within the driver’s discretion. FedEx gave drivers enough work to fill between 9.5 and 11 hours per day, but FedEx did not prescribe specific schedules as long as the packages were delivered within delivery windows specified by customers. FedEx instructed drivers to take delivery routes that would minimize time and expense and maximize profit, but Fed Ex did not prescribe specific delivery routes. FedEx also required drivers to meet FedEx’s customer-service standards and permitted managers to conduct ride-along evaluations to monitor drivers' performance and take notes on service details, including details as small as how a driver holds his or her keys after locking the vehicle. FedEx required drivers to use their own vehicles but specified that the vehicles had to be painted "FedEx white," contain the FedEx logo, and meet certain other FedEx specifications. Drivers were required to pay for the maintenance of their vehicles. FedEx provided drivers with a uniform and scanners necessary to complete deliveries, but deducted the costs of that equipment from drivers’ pay. Finally, drivers were required to meet appearance and grooming requirements. Dean Alexander and a class of fellow FedEx drivers (plaintiffs) sued FedEx in California state court asserting that they were FedEx's employees and not independent contractors. FedEx removed the action to federal court. After drivers brought similar cases in 40 other states, the cases were consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL). The MDL court granted FedEx's summary-judgment motion on the employment-status issue, concluding as a matter of law that the drivers were independent contractors. The MDL court remanded Alexander's class action back to the California federal district court to resolve the plaintiffs' remaining claims. After final judgment was entered, Alexander appealed to the Ninth Circuit, challenging the MDL court's employment-status decision.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Fletcher, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 629,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 36,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.