Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Questions About Delivery Drivers’ Employee/Independent Contractor Status Preclude Commonality and Predominance Findings

March 29, 2016 by Clifton R. Gruhn

A New Jersey district court denied certification of a putative class of furniture delivery drivers and helpers employed by various transportation companies (the “Driver/Helpers”) and individuals who owned those transportation companies. The court held that individualized questions regarding whether the plaintiffs should be classified as employees or independent contractors precluded findings of commonality and predominance.

The defendant, MXD, Inc., a company that specialized in “white glove delivery” of large items, had contracts with the putative-class-member transportation companies, under which they were paid per delivery, but MDX had no contracts with the Driver/Helpers, who were paid by the transportation companies for which they worked. The plaintiffs, both the Driver/Helpers and owners of the transportation companies, alleged that they were employees of MXD, which, they asserted, had violated New Jersey law by failing to pay them overtime wages.

Plaintiffs sought to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3). MXD argued in opposition that it did not employ the Driver/Helpers, and that, although it had contracts with the putative transportation company plaintiffs, they were independent contractors.

The court began its Rule 23(a) commonality analysis by noting that “[t]he focus is . . . on whether the defendant’s conduct was common as to all class members.” The court found that the plaintiffs were seeking to “combine two fundamentally different sets of plaintiffs: the Driver/Helper[s], and the owners of small transportation companies.” This presented two impediments to a finding of commonality, according to the court. First, the transportation companies had contracts with MXD, and, therefore, at trial, the owners of the transportation companies would only need to argue that they were misclassified under these agreements as independent contractors. The Driver/Helpers had no contracts with MXD, and thus, under the applicable test, they would first need to establish the existence of an employment relationship with MXD before they could argue that they were misclassified as independent contractors. This “additional burden,” according to the court, made “a ‘classwide answer’ on the ultimate misclassification issue unlikely.” The court further found that engaging in the employee/independent contractor analysis would not likely “provide the same answers to the two groups of plaintiffs.” The court explained that MXD’s control over each group would differ based on the presence or absence of a contractual relationship.

The court then addressed the plaintiffs’ suggestion that “a class of Driver/Helper[s]” be considered and found that such a class would fail Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement because individualized evidence would be needed to determine whether each Driver/Helper was an employee or an independent contractor. The court noted that MXD’s control (or lack thereof) over each Driver/Helper was key in determining the existence of an employment relationship; however, the “amount of control MXD exercised over the different Driver/Hebelper Plaintiffs varied significantly.” Consequently, individualized issues would arise regarding control over work schedules, attendance of meetings, and when and how often to check in with MXD.

Echavarria v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., No. 15-cv-06441 (D.N.J. Mar. 16, 2016)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Will Tender of Full Amount of Named Plaintiff’s Claim Moot a TCPA Class Action?

Next Article »

Court Holds Notice of Removal Filed 128 Days After Service of Complaint Was Timely Under CAFA
Clifton R. Gruhn

About Clifton R. Gruhn

Clifton Gruhn is a Shareholder at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida.

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.