Federal court says fleet’s drivers are employees, not contractors in Calif. ruling

| June 17, 2014

An appeals court June 16 ruled that drivers working for Georgia-based carrier Affinity Logistics — but working in California — were not independent contractors, as the fleet argued, but were employees, due to the control the carrier had over its drivers’ work.


Independent contractor status in question: What’s happening with ‘misclassification’ efforts nationwide

Trucking and labor nationwide are engaged in a debate over what determines independent contractor status, as lawmakers and courts consider whether owner-operators should be classified ...

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Calif., overturned an August 2012 ruling by a lower court that held the drivers were independent contractors. Affinity driver Fernando Ruiz sued the carrier in 2009 claiming he and others were misclassified, causing them to not receive sick leave, vacation, holidays or severance wages. He also said Affinity was improperly charging the drivers workers’ compensation insurance.

The appeals court’s ruling stemmed from several factors about the relationship between Affinity and the drivers, chief among them being Affinity’s ability to control “details of the drivers’ work,” which the court said meant controlling their rates, schedules and routes, along with their equipment, their appearance and clothing, and requiring them to report to the carrier’s warehouse each morning and afternoon.

Drivers were required to sign an “Independent Truckman’s Agreement” an an “Equipment Lease Agreement” prior to beginning work for Affinity. They were one-year contracts that renewed automatically each year, but they could be terminated without cause from either side.

The ITA set the drivers’ rate of pay, $23 per stop, and stipulated that drivers could be “transferred to another location then being served by Affinity,” and failing to comply would mean a breach of the contract. Given the consistent amount of work days and stops each week, drivers mostly were paid a consistent amount, the court says.


Worker advocacy groups say nearly 70 percent of port truckers misclassified as contractors

Nearly 50,000 of the 75,000 port truckers in the U.S. are misclassified as independent contractors, according to a recent report, which says the misclassification costs ...

Affinity also made drivers adhere to a procedures manual, which outlined requirements for loading and unloading, dealing with customers, reporting to the office and more.

Drivers were required to work five to seven days a week and would have to request off time three to four weeks in advance — requests that Affinity could deny.

The carrier required drivers to lease trucks from them and automatically deducted $350 a week from a driver’s pay for the lease payment. Trucks were required to be painted white, and were required to have a Sears logo and Affinity’s name on the door. Most drivers drove the same truck every day, and Affinity handled upkeep, but deducted repair costs from drivers’ checks. Also deducted from drivers’ checks were the costs for their phone, which was also supplied and required by Affinity.

Drivers were also required to hire a “helper” or secondary driver, approval for which had to be obtained by Affinity.

Drivers were required to report each morning for a stand-up meeting at the San Diego warehouse, where they would pick up their daily schedule and routes. They were required to wear uniforms issued by Affinity — but charged to the drivers — and had to keep their facial hair a certain way.

They also were “strongly discouraged” from taking their trucks home and were asked to leave their keys with the office during nights and weekends so other drivers could use the trucks for jobs.

“Affinity regulated many details of the drivers’ work, including working conditions and the manner in which drivers made their deliveries,” the court said. “Thus, the most important factor under [precedent] analysis — right to control — indicates overwhelmingly that the drivers were Affinity’s employees.”

The court also ruled that secondary factors — the drivers’ operations were not distinct businesses, they worked under principal direction, right to fire drivers at will, no real beginning or end date of service, to name a few — weighed in their decision.

The judicial panel remanded the case to the district court that heard the case before it for further action.

  • Greg Haymon

    What a bunch of cow dunk these people were company workers/drivers forced to maintane this co. Trucks and charge for all tbe other crap and leave tbe trucks so other people could drive.. well i hope this drives them rigbt out of business!! Bunch of crooks

  • jim stewart

    this isn’t first time these employee cases have been won in federal court or before the national labor relations board. these guys are clearly employees by their treatment not true owner-op’s. they lease a company owned truck from the company and are totally under the companies control which is merely a scam for the carrier to avoid paying employee taxes among other federal employee requirements. nothing new here but just another carrier who got caught doing this stupid stunt. it doesn’t in any way mean that legitimate owner-operator truckers are employees nor does it open the door any wider for the nationwide push by the Teamsters to get rid of the owner-operator trucker across America. there’s a couple dozen motor carriers who have been taken to court over this very same thing in the past fifteen years. by now one would think they would wise up to what they can ad can not do…

  • Kevin J. Reidy

    Contractors? Ha!

    Not even close, a blind man could see they were employees

    What a bunch of crooks that company is.

  • Pingback: Obama's Corporate Exodus | moneychannel2014.com

  • Dick

    Good Deal!!! Maybe enough drivers will do the same to the other crooked carriers that prey on Drivers for FREE LABOR.

  • Machoflaco

    My company is doing this. Who do I file complaint to? We are independent contractors, but have set schedules, uniforms, SOP requirements, set routes, are responsible for damage to vehicles, etc.

  • John Miller

    Just thinking out loud, by this description of an employee, wouldn’t FedEx ground contractors be considered employees?

    The company listed in this article is totally in the wrong, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s not a cow.

  • steve4447

    So the mean old Government is actually going to make these guys get payed and stop bending over for the company….What a shame that they never would man up and say. No…but drivers hate Unions don’t they…Just like they hate regulation of any kind….

  • ez

    i would do some research and try to find the attorney for this case. or look up labor / employee lawyers in your state. you could also call your states dept of labor.

  • pygm&hub

    let me know when the class action suit begins. be the first in line. drove for a fleet owner of an expediting co. was considered a contractor.

  • Pingback: Insurance Restoration Contractors In Sunset District Ca | Water Damage San Diego

OverdriveOnline.com strives to maintain an open forum for reader opinions. Click here to read our comment policy.