THE LAST WORD What’s in a Name?
By Greg Jones Guest Writer
So, is that driver your employee?
Or maybe an independent contractor? And what’s the big deal anyways? Well, it might not be a big deal
in some respects. But if facing expo- sure for hourly wages, unemployment insurance taxes and company benefits is critical to your company, then the “employee”/ “independent contractor” distinction is a big deal. Unfortunately, in our industry the
determination of driver status remains a rather murky and treacherous area. And that lack of legal predictability can serve as the wellspring for costly litigation, as exemplified by two Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions issued Aug. 27, 2014. Both cases pitted FedEx Ground against FedEx delivery drivers in California and Oregon. The core issue was whether those drivers would be characterized as “employees” versus “independent contractors” under California and Oregon laws. If deemed to be “employees” (rather than “inde- pendent contractors” as their operating agreements with FedEx described them), then FedEx faced wide-ranging exposure for unpaid wages and company benefits. In the twin decisions, the Ninth
Circuit held that the contractual lan- guage labeling the drivers as “inde- pendent contractors” did not dictate the issue’s outcome. The Court found it significant, that while the drivers
owned their own vehicles and had some discretion in how they operated, FedEx had dictated standards for drivers’ appearance, had set specifications for the driver-owned trucks and had con- trolled driver work hours as well as how and when packages were to be delivered. On balance, the Court concluded that the independence enjoyed by the drivers in certain facets of their operations was overshadowed by the motor carrier’s control (or “right to control”) other aspects of their operations. Applying California and Oregon laws, the Ninth Circuit ruled that FedEx’s drivers are employees for purposes of wages and related benefits. So how will Arkansas trucking
companies fare in the wake of these two recent decisions? As a legal matter, the Ninth Circuit’s rulings have prec- edential effect only in California and Oregon. Aside from those Arkansas- based carriers conducting substantial operations on the West Coast, the two rulings may have no immediate impact here. Yet given the few reported Arkansas cases addressing this issue, it is likely that advocates for groups of drivers may brandish these two deci- sions if and when they sue Arkansas motor carriers. The Arkansas Trucking Association
has not sat idly by. In 2013, your Association addressed a somewhat related issue in the workers compensa- tion context. Specifically, motor carriers were facing claims by owner-operators (or by their drivers) even though the
claimants may have driven for mul- tiple carriers simultaneously and even though the owner/operators had con- tributed nothing towards workers’ compensation premiums. Indeed, the prospects of having to pay non-insured claims out of pocket for scores of own- er-operators (and their own drivers) threatened to wreak havoc with motor carriers’ finances. Legislation proposed by the
Association eventually became Act 1166 of 2013, which created the country’s first system of its kind whereby owner- operators could elect to obtain worker’s compensation coverage provided that they would pay the premiums. This legislative solution enabled owner- operators to gain access to needed worker’s compensation coverage, yet simultaneously protected the motor car- riers from undue financial exposure. But language in Act 1166 also expresses the sentiment of the Arkansas General Assembly that, even if provided workers compensation benefits, owner-operators and their drivers are not “employees” of the motor carriers for whom they oper- ate – even if they drive exclusively for a single motor carrier. For Arkansas car- riers facing the prospect of future litiga- tion over what name their drivers will be called, this may be a useful arrow to have in their litigation quivers.
Greg Jones is a partner with Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP in Little Rock and serves as General Counsel to the Arkansas Trucking Association, Inc. He can be reached at
gjones@wlj.com
Opinions expressed on this page may not reflect official policies or opinions of the Arkansas Trucking Association or the American Trucking Associations.
50 ARKANSAS TRUCKING REPORT | Issue 4 2014
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52