Opinion ID: 4512245
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Genuine Disputes of Material Fact Exist

Text: For summary judgment to have been appropriate, there must have been no genuine disputes as to any material facts on the record, entitling Uber to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). As such, if there is a genuine dispute of material fact, the question of which DialAmerica factors favor employee status is a question of fact that should go to a factfinder. Here, the ultimate question of law is whether Plaintiffs are employees or independent contractors, which is for a judge to decide. But, if a court finds that there are any issues of fact that remain in dispute, it must resolve those disputes prior to granting summary judgment. See DialAmerica, 757 F.2d at 1381. In DialAmerica, the parties stipulated to some facts and reserved the right to present testimony on any remaining disputed issues. Then, the district court held an evidentiary hearing on the remaining disputed issues of fact:
distributors were dependent on DialAmerica;
opportunity for profit or loss;
initiative, business judgment, or foresight in their activities;
conjunction with their work for DialAmerica; and
by the home researchers and distributors were an integral part of DialAmerica’s business. 16 Id. These factual issues refer directly to the factors which determine whether someone is an employee or independent contractor. The district court resolved these disputes and granted DialAmerica’s motion for summary judgment. We reviewed the district court’s decision in DialAmerica and determined that summary judgment was a mischaracterization, but the proper outcome, as all the factual disputes were resolved prior to adjudication on the merits. 7 Id. at 1381, 1388. DialAmerica teaches that where there are questions of fact that need resolution, these questions must go to a fact-finder. 8 This 7 In DialAmerica, Judge Becker noted that, because the district court held a two-day hearing to find relevant facts, this Court would “simply treat the [district] court’s letter opinions as the findings of facts and conclusions of law required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 52, and its orders as judgments entered after trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.” 757 F.2d at 1381–82. Here, that avenue is not available to us, as no evidentiary hearing was held to find relevant facts to determine if summary judgment was appropriate. 8 An important distinction exists between a factual dispute, and a factual dispute that is material. Summary judgment is correctly granted in many situations where the parties genuinely dispute facts but where the dispute is not material to the adjudication of the case. See, e.g., Verma v. 3001 Castor, Inc., 937 F.3d 221, 229 (3d Cir. 2019) (granting summary judgment on the question of employee versus independent contractor status, but noting that “[i]n some cases, one or more 17 case presents such genuine disputes of material facts. Uber submitted a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to which Plaintiffs responded with almost a hundred pages of disputes. For example, disputed facts include whether Plaintiffs are operating within Uber’s system and under Uber’s rules, and whether Plaintiffs or their corporations contracted directly with Uber. Although the District Court states that its decision derived from undisputed facts, the disputes presented by the parties go to the core of the DialAmerica factors and present a genuine dispute of material facts. Accordingly, we will remand to the District Court as summary judgment was inappropriate.