Opinion ID: 6499943
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Profits and Losses

Text: The profits and losses factor also illustrates genuine issues of material fact are still in dispute. Under this factor, courts generally consider whether workers had control over profits and losses depending on their “managerial skill.” See, e.g., Verma v. 3001 Castor, Inc., 937 F.3d 221, 231 (3d Cir. 2019); Off Duty Police Servs., 915 F.3d at 1059. A worker exercising managerial skills such as setting his own hours and rates along with the ability for the worker to earn additional income through his own initiatives indicate control over profits and losses. See Razak, 951 F.3d at 146; Verma, 937 F.3d at 231; Scantland v. Jeffry Knight, Inc., 721 F.3d 1308, 1317 (11th Cir. 2013). In other words, facts demonstrating that a worker can use “his managerial skill to ‘improve his efficiency such that he c[an] complete more’ jobs” weigh in favor of independent contractor status. Off Duty Police Servs., 915 F.3d at 1059 (alteration in original) (quoting Keller v. Miri Microsystems LLC, 781 F.3d 799, 813 (6th Cir. 2015)). It is undisputed Travelon set the drivers’ rates and facilitated trip assignments given to drivers through the MediRoutes driving app. These facts demonstrate Travelon limited the drivers’ opportunity for profit or loss. See Razak, 951 F.3d at 146–47 (stating Uber limited its drivers’ opportunities for profit or loss by deciding the fare, which driver receives trip requests, whether to refund or cancel a passenger’s fare, and the driver’s territory). But Travelon has also demonstrated facts that suggest the drivers were able to earn additional income through their own initiatives. For example, Cernatinskij -8- stated that drivers could transport multiple customers at a time to make trips more profitable. See id. at 146 (noting drivers’ abilities to determine “when, where, and how to utilize the Driver App to obtain more lucrative trip requests and to generate more profits” evidenced independent contractor status). Drivers could also maximize their profit by using their own vehicles and tablets rather than leasing from Travelon. Moreover, the parties offer competing testimony over whether drivers could provide services independent of their work for Travelon. Cernatinschi testified that at least three drivers have provided medical transportation on their own and not through Travelon. These drivers also provided non-medical transportation using the vans leased from Travelon without using Travelon or Cernatinschi’s dispatching services. Cernatinskij, however, testified that it would be impossible for drivers to provide STS on their own or for another provider while also driving for Travelon. Thus, a factual dispute remains as to whether drivers could provide services independently to generate more profit. See id. at 147 (considering Uber drivers’ abilities to drive for competitors a material fact in determining the opportunity for profit or loss). A rational fact finder could find the drivers are able to transport multiple customers, use their personal vehicles, and perform services independent of their work with Travelon which would ultimately affect whether this factor weighs in favor of an independent contractor relationship between Travelon and its drivers. Thus, a trier of fact needs to weigh the competing evidence to resolve these factual disputes.