IBJNews

FedEx wins dismissal of some claims in drivers' suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

FedEx Corp. won partial dismissal of a class-action lawsuit brought by contract drivers who contend they are entitled to full benefits because the company treats them as employees.

A federal judge in South Bend threw out some claims in the suit, saying the workers failed to exhaust out-of- court, administrative procedures that might help them get the medical, dental and retirement benefits they seek.

“Merely showing that FedEx is predisposed to deny the plaintiffs’ claims and has consistently taken that position in this lawsuit isn’t sufficient to show by certainty that the claims would be denied,” U.S. District Judge Robert L. Miller wrote in a June 28 opinion.

Miller’s decision allows the drivers to re-file claims against FedEx, the world’s largest air-cargo carrier, should the named plaintiffs exhaust the administrative process. The Memphis, Tenn.-based company, which has a distribution hub in Indianapolis, says its contract-driver model is legal and was approved for tax purposes by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in 1994.

“It’s a procedural setback as opposed to a substantive setback,” Lynn Faris, a lawyer for the drivers, said in a phone interview. “We will do exactly as the judge says and have the named plaintiffs file the administrative claims.”

The case is part of a so-called multidistrict litigation, which allows suits filed in courts around the U.S. to be consolidated before a single judge for pretrial hearings.

“The ruling is the latest victory for FedEx Ground in the ongoing legal challenges to the independent contractor model,” FedEx spokesman Maury Lane said in an e-mailed statement. “We believe that all lawsuits in the multi-district litigation are without merit and part of a broad-based assault on independent contractors who have chosen to own and operate their own businesses.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Gay marriage is coming, whether or not these bigots and zealots like it or not. We must work to ensure future generations remember the likes of Greg Zoeller like they do the racists of our past...in shame.

  2. Perhaps a diagram of all the network connections of all politicians to their supporters and those who are elite/wealthy and how they have voted on bills that may have benefited their supporters. The truth may hurt, but there are no non-disclosures in government.

  3. I'm sure these lawyers were having problems coming up with any non-religious reason to ban same-sex marriage. I've asked proponents of this ban the question many times and the only answers I have received were religious reasons. Quite often the reason had to do with marriage to a pet or marriage between a group even though those have nothing at all to do with this. I'm looking forward to less discrimination in our state soon!

  4. They never let go of the "make babies" argument. It fails instantaneously because a considerable percentage of heterosexual marriages don't produce any children either. Although if someone wants to pass a law that any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, cannot be legally married (and therefore not utilize all legal, financial, and tax benefits that come with it) until they have produced a biological child, that would be fun to see as a spectator. "All this is a reflection of biology," Fisher answered. "Men and women make babies, same-sex couples do not... we have to have a mechanism to regulate that, and marriage is that mechanism." The civil contract called marriage does NOTHING to regulate babymaking, whether purposefully or accidental. These conservatives really need to understand that sex education and access to birth control do far more to regulate babymaking in this country. Moreover, last I checked, same-sex couples can make babies in a variety of ways, and none of them are by accident. Same-sex couples often foster and adopt the children produced by the many accidental pregnancies from mixed-sex couples who have failed at self-regulating their babymaking capabilities.

  5. Every parent I know with kids from 6 -12 has 98.3 on its car radio all the time!! Even when my daughter isn't in the car I sometimes forget to change stations. Not everybody wants to pay for satellite radio. This will be a huge disappointment to my 9 year old. And to me - there's so many songs on the radio that I don't want her listening to.

ADVERTISEMENT