Opinion ID: 6499943
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Integral to Business

Text: Lastly, genuine disputes of material fact remain as to whether drivers are integral to Travelon’s business. This factor turns “on whether workers’ services are a necessary component of the business.” Paragon Contractors, 884 F.3d at 1237 (quoting Baker v. Flint Eng’g & Constr. Co., 137 F.3d 1436, 1443 (10th Cir. 1998)). -9- Here, the Secretary argues the drivers are integral to Travelon’s business. The Secretary points to evidence that Travelon refers to itself as an STS provider, is registered with Minnesota as an STS provider, and that Travelon’s customers depend on Travelon’s drivers to perform services. But Travelon seeks to distinguish itself from actual STS providers. Travelon describes itself as an “intermediary company that supports the drivers’ transportation businesses” that only makes revenue by leasing vehicles and equipment to drivers and selling dispatch subscriptions. Travelon bills customers for the STS but then pays drivers the entire amount collected from the customers for the trip. Drivers then must pay Travelon the various fees discussed earlier associated with leasing the vehicle, dispatch fees, tablet rental, and insurance fees. Thus, Travelon’s revenue is generated entirely from the drivers—not the passengers. Whether Travelon is indeed an STS provider or merely a technology company that supports the drivers’ STS businesses is a disputed material fact that must be resolved. See Razak, 951 F.3d at 147 n.12 (holding evidence underlying Uber’s argument “that it is a technology company that supports drivers’ transportation businesses, and not a transportation company that employs drivers” raised a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment). A rational trier of fact could find Travelon’s characterization of its business model persuasive, thus finding the drivers are not integral to Travelon’s business. For this reason, the district court erred in concluding the drivers were integral to Travelon’s business as a matter of law. In sum, the award of summary judgment was premature. While the Secretary has shown evidence supporting an employment relationship between Travelon and its drivers, Travelon has also shown evidence of an independent contractor relationship. These competing narratives must be resolved before the district court makes its legal conclusion as to whether an employment relationship existed between Travelon and its drivers. -10-