Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
New Prime Inc. vs Oliveira SCOTUS 17-340
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dmac1" data-source="post: 3760717" data-attributes="member: 60252"><p>I just did a quick glance at the case. This is about a contractor working for a trucking company that is filing a case for back pay and to claim that he was an employee under the law. The contract required arbitration, and the guy is trying to avoid arbitration by claiming that as a contractor, he can't be required to use arbitration. On one hand he is saying the contract makes him a contractor, while at the same time claiming he should have been labelled an employee. </p><p></p><p>I faced a similar situation. I filed for unemployment after fedex terminated my contract when I wouldn't violate the contract. My 'damages' were more than the contract would have allowed me to recover under arbitration. I filed a case claiming that the arbitration clause was unenforcable because it was unfair and one-sided, and won. So at that point I was able to file a lawsuit for damages. At the same time, fedex fought my unemployment claim, saying I was a contractor, and wasn't allowed to collect UI. After several months, I won and fedex was named as my employer, and also the employer of people I used to drive my routes. At that point, the class action was starting, and I was asked to join as a named plaintiff, since I had already been found to be an employee by the state. My lawsuit for damages was based on contract damages, and wasn't compatible with claiming I was an employee. Both sets of lawyers acknowledged that trying to claim both could be an issue in both cases, and said I should choose one or the other. I foolishly thought the class action would be quicker and dropped my personal case. My real losses were the ability to sell my route, and a loss I took on a couple of my vans. There could have been some punitive damages, but the state required that half of punitive damages would go to the state anyway. After the class action, I probably ended up close to breaking even covering the loss on the vans, plus most or maybe all of what I would have netted from selling the route. But the class action took more than 10 years, basically because of the attorneys trying to consolidate all the state cases. They had originally thought that there were federal claims they could make pertaining to ERISA. I don't know why they never followed up on those except that they wanted to get it over with, and made enough money by settling.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dmac1, post: 3760717, member: 60252"] I just did a quick glance at the case. This is about a contractor working for a trucking company that is filing a case for back pay and to claim that he was an employee under the law. The contract required arbitration, and the guy is trying to avoid arbitration by claiming that as a contractor, he can't be required to use arbitration. On one hand he is saying the contract makes him a contractor, while at the same time claiming he should have been labelled an employee. I faced a similar situation. I filed for unemployment after fedex terminated my contract when I wouldn't violate the contract. My 'damages' were more than the contract would have allowed me to recover under arbitration. I filed a case claiming that the arbitration clause was unenforcable because it was unfair and one-sided, and won. So at that point I was able to file a lawsuit for damages. At the same time, fedex fought my unemployment claim, saying I was a contractor, and wasn't allowed to collect UI. After several months, I won and fedex was named as my employer, and also the employer of people I used to drive my routes. At that point, the class action was starting, and I was asked to join as a named plaintiff, since I had already been found to be an employee by the state. My lawsuit for damages was based on contract damages, and wasn't compatible with claiming I was an employee. Both sets of lawyers acknowledged that trying to claim both could be an issue in both cases, and said I should choose one or the other. I foolishly thought the class action would be quicker and dropped my personal case. My real losses were the ability to sell my route, and a loss I took on a couple of my vans. There could have been some punitive damages, but the state required that half of punitive damages would go to the state anyway. After the class action, I probably ended up close to breaking even covering the loss on the vans, plus most or maybe all of what I would have netted from selling the route. But the class action took more than 10 years, basically because of the attorneys trying to consolidate all the state cases. They had originally thought that there were federal claims they could make pertaining to ERISA. I don't know why they never followed up on those except that they wanted to get it over with, and made enough money by settling. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
New Prime Inc. vs Oliveira SCOTUS 17-340
Top