Royal

Misclassification of Delivery Drivers

August 30, 2023

U.S. District Court has held that when a company could not demonstrate that three delivery drivers were free from its control, that the delivery drivers had been misclassified as independent contractors and were awarded partial summary judgement.


Three delivery drivers brought suit in U.S. District Court against their employer alleging misclassification by the employer and unlawfully deducted wages. When the drivers moved for summary judgement in their favor, the court put the burden on the employer of showing that the drivers were free from its control.


Here, though there is some dispute about the exact requirements, drivers must drive box trucks. They are circumscribed in how they deliver the products. They are subject to a dress code. They have no control over their customer base. Helpers are prescreened. They are monitored by the employer before, during, and after deliveries. Indeed, the only aspects of their work [delivery service providers (DSPs)] had control over were the aspects that a typical employer would like to relinquish: paying and training additional employees and maintaining tools and equipment.


Therefore, the court held that the employer “cannot relinquish ‘control’ over these costs, retain control over all other aspects of employment, and receive the unfair ‘windfall’ that results from ‘avoiding their statutory obligations, shifting financial burdens to state and federal governments, and gaining an unfair advantage in the marketplace.”


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. 

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: