Estrada v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that drivers were FedEx’s employees in part because “[t]he larger items—trucks and scanners—are obtained from FedEx approved providers, [are] usually financed through FedEx, and [are] repaid through deductions from the drivers’ weekly checks”
• holding that drivers were employees in part because “drivers ... must be at the terminal at regular times for sorting and packing as well as mandatory meetings, and they may not leave until the process is completed”
• finding that the fact that drivers “are paid weekly, not by the job” weighs in favor of employee status
• recognizing the applicability of the employee/independent contractor distinction in the context of claims brought under the California Labor Code
• noting that “there are a number of additional factors in the modern equation”
• holding single work area drivers were employees rather than independent contractors under California law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).