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
Settlement approval
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="bacha29" data-source="post: 2439550" data-attributes="member: 58386"><p>The settlement involves people who were contractors. The objection to the settlement involves people who drove trucks and delivered for a contractor. Now if these claimants did not have a contract in place with FXG during the years in question how could they be anything other than employees of that contractor and how could they be entitled to payment under the settlement? if the contractor for whom those people drove and delivered filed W4 and withheld and payed employer taxes (w-2's) then these people would unquestionably be employees and therefore not part of the settlement. So what is the contractor claiming? That he simply proclaimed them to be contractors as well even though they have no contractual agreement with FXG in place but are also entitled to a equal share? Or are they saying that because they had more than one route they should be given a share for each one of the routes they controlled? Or since the courts ruled that the contractor's were employees should they and the people who worked for them should all be entitled to a share? It would appear that just who actually is a claimant is what is being challenged and must be narrowed and defined more clearly by the courts if this thing is to ever be finally settled. In the meantime the 20 state MDL often referred to as "The East Coast Settlement" is now the " next man up".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bacha29, post: 2439550, member: 58386"] The settlement involves people who were contractors. The objection to the settlement involves people who drove trucks and delivered for a contractor. Now if these claimants did not have a contract in place with FXG during the years in question how could they be anything other than employees of that contractor and how could they be entitled to payment under the settlement? if the contractor for whom those people drove and delivered filed W4 and withheld and payed employer taxes (w-2's) then these people would unquestionably be employees and therefore not part of the settlement. So what is the contractor claiming? That he simply proclaimed them to be contractors as well even though they have no contractual agreement with FXG in place but are also entitled to a equal share? Or are they saying that because they had more than one route they should be given a share for each one of the routes they controlled? Or since the courts ruled that the contractor's were employees should they and the people who worked for them should all be entitled to a share? It would appear that just who actually is a claimant is what is being challenged and must be narrowed and defined more clearly by the courts if this thing is to ever be finally settled. In the meantime the 20 state MDL often referred to as "The East Coast Settlement" is now the " next man up". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
Settlement approval
Top