Federal Express Lawsuit

---

• The Lawsuit Explained
• Your Legal Rights
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Recent News
• Contact Us

Updated Information as of 3/7/08 

The law firm of Laub Delaney, LLP is pleased to announce an alliance with a Texas law firm located in Houston and a Pennsylvania law firm located in Philadelphia for the express purpose of pursuing claims against FedEx in Philadelphia County and assuring that our clients receive the best possible legal representation.  Filing of these individual law suits on behalf of drivers will take place during the coming week. 

The main focus of these lawsuits is to obtain compensation for each and every FedEx driver whom we represent, as these drivers have been denied compensation and a multitude of benefits while in the employ of FedEx.    

The Lawsuit Explained

The Drivers

The FedEx driver lawsuit is a relatively new controversy, and it has arisen because of a technical classification for the group of drivers as a whole. Below you'll find some of the basic tenets of the FedEx driver lawsuit explained, but if you'd like to find out if you can or should be a part of the FedEx driver lawsuit, contact Laub Delaney, LLP today to schedule a free initial consultation.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CLAIMS INVOLVING FED EX PLEASE SEE www.fedexwatch.com/resources/ground and www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2006-06-03-fedex_x.htm

Employee or Contractor?

The crux of the issue at the center of the FedEx driver lawsuit is whether or not the drivers in question, and that would be all of them, are classified as contractors or employees. FedEx has always held the position that their drivers are contractors, while drivers are beginning to unite in their claim that they are in fact employees when it comes to their treatment under the tax code and other employment laws.

There are significant differences between a contractor and an employee in relation to the tax code. Specifically, a contractor does not have taxes withheld from pay checks, but that means that he or she must also normally pay a tax bill when it comes time to file the annual tax return. An employee, on the other hand, does have taxes withheld from paychecks, but, depending on individual circumstances, will usually not have to pay as much, if anything, to the government every April.

Another significant consideration in regards to the employee vs. contractor dichotomy is the rights that are held by employees. Within certain contexts, employees must be offered benefits, including sick time and health insurance, while a contractor is not paid for time off and is responsible for his or her own benefits and insurance. There are also employee termination rights in place in many situations that are not in existence with contractors.

Overall, there are several issues to consider regarding the FedEx driver lawsuit.  If you have questions or feel that you may be a candidate to get involved, contact Laub Delaney today at (800) 683-1111 for a free initial consultation.

Top

Your Legal Rights

Below are just a few items to consider completing in your effort to determine whether or not you should get involved, but for an individualized analysis of your situation, contact the attorneys at Laub Delaney, LLP to schedule a free initial consultation.

If you work now or have worked for FedEx in the past, you need to gather as much documentation as you can. Below are a few examples of potentially relevant documentation

• A copy of your job application;
• Any documentation that you received after you began driving for FedEx;
• Any pay stubs;
• Your past and most recent tax returns;
• Any health insurance documentation;
• Any correspondence between you and FedEx.

If you don't have all of these documents, don't be concerned - they can be made available later in the process.

After you've gathered your documentation, contact the attorneys at Laub Delaney, LLP to schedule a free initial consultation. Our firm will be able to help you determine whether or not proceeding with a claim would be advisable, and we'll use your evidence and your explanation to collectively come to a decision.

One thing you need to remember is that you only have a certain amount of time to file a claim, so contact Laub Delaney today at (800) 683-1111 for a free initial consultation.

Top

Frequently Asked Questions

17. Why is this controversy arising?
1. FedEx driver lawsuits are beginning to be filed, and to date more than 30 have been officially filed, because FedEx has classified drivers as independent contractors as opposed to employees. Drivers around the country are claiming that they should have the same rights as employees, and FedEx is refusing to offer these rights.

17. What is the basis of the claim or claims?
1. The basis of the claims for these FedEx driver lawsuits is that these drivers should be employees, and among other things, this would entitle drivers to gain potentially significant tax relief. Independent contractors must be responsible for their own taxes at the end of the year, and this can lead to a significant payment attached to a tax return.

17. Are there other rights at issue?
1. Yes. Employees, aside from the inherent tax advantages, also enjoy benefits that include health and sometimes life insurance, paid vacation time and protection under employment laws that are generally not afforded to independent contractors. It is also much less costly for the employer to use independent contractors as opposed to employees for payroll tax and employee benefits reasons.

17. I drive/used to drive for FedEx. Do I have a claim?
1. Potentially. If you drive or used to drive for FedEx, you could have a right to bring a FedEx driver lawsuit if you were classified as an independent contractor. The best way to find out is to contact Laub Delaney today at (800) 683-1111 for a free initial consultation.

Top

Recent News

LAWYERS FOR FEDEX DRIVERS LAUD FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULING DENYING COMPANY'S APPEAL OF DRIVER CLASS CERTIFICATION

SAN FRANCISCO, CA (January 23, 2008)- Lawyers for FedEx Ground/Home Deliver drivers who have been classified as independent contractors instead of employees today are hailing the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upholding the granting of class certification by the U.S. District Court in Indiana.

The three-judge panel yesterday rejected FedEx's (NYSE:FDX) request to review the nationwide class certification of the drivers; claim for employee benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and other claims, said Lynn Rossman, lead counsel for the drivers int heir nationwide class action.

"This is the latest in a string of major legal setbacks for FedEx," commented Faris.  "We now look forward to the District Court issuing the class certification decisions int eh remaining lawsuits.  The 7th Circuit decision also means the cases can move forward without the delay an appeal would have created.  We are one step closer to justice for the tens of thousands of misclassified FedEx drivers."

She noted that the Internal Revenue Service recently ordered FedEx to pay taxes and penalties of $319 million for a single year, after finding that FedEx misclassified drivers as contractors instead of employers.  The total financial liability FedEx faces int eh IRS case has been estimated by stock analysts at between $1 billion and $2.5 billion.  That does not include what FedEx owes its drivers for expenses, improper deductions from wages and overtime.

California Appeals Court Finds FedEx Drivers to be Employees

August 15, 2007 (Los Angeles, CA) - On August 13, the California Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision finding FedEx Ground drivers to be employees and not independent contractors, thus denying the appeal of FedEx in the landmark Estrada vs. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. The appeals court also determined that the FedEx Ground drivers were entitled to reimbursement for approximately $6 million in additional expenses bringing the total damages to about $11 million for 200 drivers.

In denying the appeal from the December 2005 decision, the Appeals Court found that the California drivers are actually employees, and that ". . . the work performed by the drivers is wholly integrated into FedEx's operation. The drivers look like FedEx employees, act like FedEx employees, are paid like FedEx employees, and receive many employee benefits." Citing the trial court's decision, the appellate court noted, "The essence of the trial court's statement of decision is that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck." The Court also commented that, "FedEx's control over every exquisite detail of the drivers' performance, including the color of their socks and the style of their hair, supports the trial court's conclusion that the drivers are employees . . ."

"The Appeals Court ruling is another significant step in seeking justice for every former, current and future FedEx Ground/Home Delivery driver," says Lynn Rossman Faris, Esq., the lead trial lawyer in the original lawsuit against FedEx alleging misclassification of the drivers as a way to shift the burden for paying millions in overhead expenses -- including fuel, insurance and uniforms -- from the company to the drivers, enabling FedEx Ground to compete illegally. "We intend to prove through the federal class-action suit what we've proven in California: that all FedEx Ground and Home Delivery drivers have been illegally misclassified to the detriment of the drivers, avoiding taxes every other employer pays and giving a massive windfall to the company."

Plaintiffs Tony Estrada and Jeff Morgan were thrilled: "We always knew that if we stood our ground and told the truth, justice would prevail for all of our fellow drivers."

Ms. Faris noted, "FedEx has been telling Wall Street that it would win this appeal. FedEx's attempt to spin this decision and other similar holdings sound increasingly empty and desperate. As the court said, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck, not a contractor as the company has claimed. This is the highest court to date to confirm what we have all known for a very long time."

Top