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. 

January 15, 2025
An employer brought counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse-of-process in response to a Wage Act suit brought by an employee. The Appeals Court cited that the employer’s counterclaims should have been dismissed under the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law. Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide parties with a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits filed against them, usually in response to a lawsuit. The plaintiff in this case, an hourly laborer, claimed that his employer violated the Wage Act by failing to pay him for four of the six weeks he worked for them. The employer refuted these allegations, stating that the employee had only worked for two weeks, that he had been paid in full and then brought counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The District Court judge denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims under the anti-SLAPP law. When brought to the Appeals Court, the decision was reversed; the Appeals Court stated that the defendants did not meet the burden of showing that plaintiff’s claims lacked an objectively reasonable factual basis. This ruling suggests that it might behoove an employer to pause and wait to see if a plaintiff’s Wage Act claim fails before filing a counterclaim of abuse of process or malicious prosecution in response.  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.
January 8, 2025
Attorney Trevor Brice hosted a seminar on Wednesday, January 8, 2025, discussing the possible issues with current compensation plans and contingent compensation pitfalls made possible by recent court rulings. Some of the topics discussed included: Issues with current compensation plans under the FLSA Restrictive Covenants and Compensation Plans Problems with Commission-Based Compensation Plans and Possible Solutions When a Bonus is not actually a bonus and issues under the Massachusetts Wage Act This seminar was perfect for H.R. professionals and anyone in a management position. Please feel free to contact any of the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm if you have any questions on this topic!
Share by: