Donald E. Carlson v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that, in diversity cases, we aim to reach the same result that the state’s highest court would reach based on the same facts
• noting that courts initially look to the agreement, “unless other provisions of the agreement, or the parties’ actual practice, demonstrate that this is not a valid indicator of status.”
• reversing grant of summary judgment in favor of FedEx and concluding there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the drivers were employees or independent contractors under Florida law
• “[T]he drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.”
• “the classification of a worker as an employee or an independent contractor is a fact-intensive inquiry”
• “If there is no [Florida Supreme Court] precedent, we adhere to decisions of Florida’s intermediate appellate courts absent some persuasive indication that the Florida Supreme Court would decide the issue otherwise.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).