Alaska Employment Law

Burgess rejects summary judgment for FedEx

FedEx Ground uses “independent contractors” to deliver its packages.  In Anchorage, FedEx Ground contracted with John Thompson to run packages to the Kenai/Soldotna area, and Thompson in turn contracted with Joe Williams.  Joe Williams later sued FedEx Ground, under state law, for overtime compensation, breach of contract, etc., arguing that he actually was a “joint employee” of FEG.  FEG defended by denying it had an employment relationship with Williams.

Judge Timothy Burgess has now denied most of FedEx Ground’s summary judgment motion against Williams.  Burgess held:

a)  on the AWHA claim and the subsidiary issue of employee v. independent contractor, there are genuine fact issues about FEG’s control over Williams regarding, e.g., whether FEG set Williams’ work schedule, kept his employment records, and disciplined him;

b)  on the quantum meruit claim, there are genuine fact issues about whether FEG was unjustly enriched by Williams;

c)  on the covenant of good faith/fair dealing claim, there are genuine fact issues about whether FEG’s manager knew at the time that he could not fulfill his oral promise to Williams of three years of work;  and

d)  on the Unfair Trade Practices Act claim, there are genuine fact issues about whether FEG and Williams entered into a contract.

Burgess did grant summary judgment to FEG on its statute of limitations defense.  Williams apparently argued that all OT worked during his period with FEG came due again on the last day of work, and that the 2-year AWHA limitations period (re-) started that day.  Burgess rejected that argument, which seems the same one the Alaska Supreme Court rejected in Bliss v. Bobich, 971 P.2d 141, 146 (Alaska 1996).

Comment:  FedEx Ground’s drivers are pursuing several different strategies.  Some, like Williams, are suing for overtime.  Some are arguing narrower grounds, such as “employee” status under state expense-reimbursement statutes.  In California, the state Court of Appeals has recently held that certain FEG drivers are employees under a reimbursement statute, as a matter of law.  Estrada v. FEG Package Systems, Inc., ___ P.3d ___ (Cal. Ct.App. 2d Dist. Aug. 13, 2007), review denied, ___ P.3d ___ (Cal. Nov. 28, 2007).  The California employees’ website is here.  Burgess’ opinion mentions that at least two courts have recently held that FEG drivers are employees.

For some media coverage of the FedEx Ground litigation, which includes a national class action, go here.   

Williams v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., 3:05-cv-192 TMB (D.Alaska Order of Dec. 7, 2007)(Docket # 56).

Isaac Zorea and Moshe Zorea of Anchorage represent Williams. Jeffrey Feldman of Anchorage represents FedEx Ground.