Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-11-01379/USCOURTS-ca7-11-01379-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 

---

In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ 

No. 10-3115 

IN RE:

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, 

INC. EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION. 

CARLENE M. CRAIG, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v.

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. 

No. 3:05-md-00527-RLM-CAN – Robert L. Miller, Jr., Judge. 

____________________

DECIDED JULY 8, 2015 

____________________ 

Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and TINDER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. This appeal is from the MDL court’s grant 

of summary judgment to FedEx Ground Package System, 

Inc., and denial of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiff drivers were independent contractors as 

Case: 11-1379 Document: 44 Filed: 07/08/2015 Pages: 6
2 No. 10-3115 

a matter of law under the Kansas Wage Payment Act 

(KWPA), Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 44-312 to 33-340. See In Re FedEx 

Ground Package Sys., Inc., 734 F. Supp. 2d 557 (N.D. Ind. 

2010). 

After hearing oral argument, we certified two questions 

to the Kansas Supreme Court: (1) Given the undisputed facts 

presented to the district court in this case, are the plaintiff 

drivers employees of FedEx as a matter of law under the 

KWPA? (2) Drivers can acquire more than one service area 

from Fed Ex. Is the answer to the preceding question different for plaintiff drivers who have more than one service area? Craig v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 686 F.3d 423, 431 

(7th Cir. 2012). The court expresses its appreciation to the 

Justices of the Kansas Supreme Court for their willingness to 

answer these questions. 

The Kansas Supreme Court answered “yes” to the first 

question and, as applied to the members of the certified 

class—drivers who “drive a vehicle on a full-time basis”—

answered “no” to the second question. Craig v. FedEx Ground 

Package Sys., Inc., 335 P.3d 66, 92–93 (Kan. 2014) (per curiam). 

In responding to the questions, the court restated the twenty 

factors from Crawford v. Kansas Dep’t of Human Resources, 845 

P.2d 703 (1989), used to determine whether an employeremployee relationship exists. 335 P.3d at 74, 76. The court 

explained that the twenty-factor test “includes economic reality considerations, while maintaining the primary focus on 

an employer’s right to control” and held that the test “is the 

tool to be used in Kansas to determine whether an employer/employee relationship exists under the KWPA.” Id. at 76. 

Upon receipt of the Kansas Supreme Court’s answers to 

our questions, we requested the parties to brief their respecCase: 11-1379 Document: 44 Filed: 07/08/2015 Pages: 6
No. 10-3115 3 

tive positions in light of those answers and decisions from 

other circuits issued after argument in our case. FedEx’s understanding of the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision strays 

from reality. The Kansas court restated the 20-factor test for 

determining employment status under the KWPA by eliminating ambiguous or duplicative descriptions; it did not 

enunciate a new test that requires further development of 

the factual record. The Kansas court stated a slightly different articulation of the 20-factor test, but the essence of the 20 

factors remains the same. 

And contrary to FedEx’s view, the Kansas court’s decision did not rest on whether FedEx exercises “actual control” 

over the plaintiff drivers. We repeat what the court actually 

said:

The District Court in this case primarily focused on 

the OA’s [Operating Agreement] statements of FedEx’s right to control the drivers, opining that the actual control that FedEx exercised over the drivers was 

not the question. But we consider the manner in 

which FedEx implemented the OA to be a compelling 

factor in determining the substantive question of the 

company’s right to control its drivers. 

Id. at 76 (citation omitted). This is simply another way of 

saying that FedEx’s policies and procedures bear on its right 

to control the drivers, which is how the MDL court viewed 

the matter as well. See, e.g., In re FedEx Ground Package Sys.,

734 F. Supp. 2d at 577 (“[T]he court finds it appropriate to 

review the policies and procedures that FedEx managers rely on when interacting with drivers to determine right to 

control. The court isn’t required to turn a blind eye to FedEx’s procedures implemented on a class-wide basis.”); id. at 

Case: 11-1379 Document: 44 Filed: 07/08/2015 Pages: 6
4 No. 10-3115 

579 (“The court can’t make generalizations about the class ... 

from a review of the actual control FedEx exercised.... The 

court’s analysis will focus on FedEx’s right to control all 

drivers based on the Operating Agreement and generally 

applicable policies and procedures.”); id. at 589 (“[T]he court 

is limited in determining whether FedEx retained the right 

to control. The court relies on the policies and procedures to 

the extent they show how FedEx implemented its authority 

as retained by the Operating Agreement.”). The Kansas 

court’s decision does not mandate an evidentiary inquiry 

into actual control. “Actual control” cannot even be found 

among the twenty factors used to determine whether an 

employer-employee relationship exists under the KWPA. See 

335 P.3d at 76. 

FedEx’s other criticisms of the Kansas Supreme Court’s 

decision are unavailing as well. For example, FedEx asserts 

that the Kansas court relied on the factual record in Estrada 

v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 327 (Cal. Ct. 

App. 2007). However, the court’s reference to Estrada’s 

commentary on FedEx’s right to control under the OA was 

made to emphasize to the Kansas court’s own conclusions. 

In addition, decertification of the class in the Craig case is 

neither required nor appropriate. FedEx dismissed its crossappeal of the MDL court’s class certification order in this 

case. 

Not surprisingly, FedEx argues that we should not follow 

the Kansas Supreme Court’s answers to the certified questions. FedEx argues that the Justices drew adverse inferences 

from the record against FedEx. But “a certified question requires [the state court] to conduct purely legal analysis.” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Briggs, 317 P.3d 770, 772 (Kan. 2014). 

Case: 11-1379 Document: 44 Filed: 07/08/2015 Pages: 6
No. 10-3115 5 

“Certification would be a pointless exercise unless the state 

court’s answers are regarded as an authoritative and binding 

statement of state law. ... [T]he state answers are binding.” 

17A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 

Jurisdiction § 4248 (3d ed., updated Apr. 2015); see Cnty. of 

Westchester, N.Y. v. Comm’r of Transp., 9 F.3d 242, 246–47 (2d 

Cir. 1991) (rejecting the argument that state supreme court’s 

decision addressing the particular circumstances of the case 

was not binding and stating that the decision was dispositive). FedEx simply disagrees with the Kansas Supreme 

Court’s legal conclusions. 

Other circuit courts have considered FedEx’s relationship 

with its drivers, see Carlson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 

No. 13–14979, — F.3d —, 2015 WL 3405994 (11th Cir. May 

28, 2015) (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); Slayman v. FedEx Ground 

Package Sys., Inc., 765 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (reversing 

grant of summary judgment to FedEx and denial of partial 

summary judgment to plaintiffs, holding that the drivers 

were employees as a matter of law under Oregon law); Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 

2014) (same, but under California law); FedEx Home Delivery 

v. NLRB, 563 F.3d 492 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (reversing agency decision that FedEx drivers were employees), but they applied 

different legal rules than applied under Kansas law. 

The application of Kansas law to FedEx’s relationship 

with its drivers has been authoritatively decided by the Kansas Supreme Court: “under the undisputed facts presented, 

the FedEx delivery drivers are employees for purposes of the 

Case: 11-1379 Document: 44 Filed: 07/08/2015 Pages: 6
6 No. 10-3115 

KWPA.” Craig, 335 P.3d at 92. The Kansas Supreme Court’s 

decision necessitates the reversal of the MDL court’s grant of 

summary judgment in favor of FedEx and denial of the 

plaintiff drivers’ summary judgment motion. Accordingly, 

we now REVERSE the MDL court’s denial of the plaintiff 

drivers’ motion for summary judgment and its grant of FedEx’s motion for summary judgment. The Craig case is 

REMANDED to the MDL court with instructions to enter 

judgment for the plaintiff drivers that they are employees of 

FedEx for purposes of the KWPA and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, which ultimately may require a remand of the case to the Kansas district court for a 

determination of damages. 

Case: 11-1379 Document: 44 Filed: 07/08/2015 Pages: 6