Illinois employee driver v. contractor lawsuit now a class action fight

A lawsuit against Illinois-based carrier Risinger Brothers Transfer Inc. has been granted class action status, widening the number of drivers in the lawsuit who are ostensibly independent contractors but who claim to have been governed as employees. The U. S.

District Court for the Central District of Illinois ruled Friday that the case brought by two drivers at Risinger could be converted into a class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

“In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that, effectively, Risinger misclassified the plaintiffs as independent contractors rather than employees,” Judge Jonathan Hawley said in handing down his decision.

The plaintiffs–with driver Michael Contreras as the lead named plaintiff–“allege their pay and wage deductions violated the minimum wage owed to them under the FLSA,” the judge added.

Judge: battle still to be fought Judge Hawley’s decision, at several points, took pains to note that granting the class action request did not signify an acceptance of the drivers’ charges. He said in the request for the granting of a class action, defendants don’t have a large hill to climb.

Citing a legal precedent, Judge Hawley said the plaintiffs, to obtain a class action certification, “(do) not have to provide (their) case, foreclose disputes or satisfy an exceeding high burden. The test instead, Judge Hawley said, is that a plaintiff must produce “some evidence” (again citing the recent case of Richards vs.

Eli Lilly) “that they and the members of the proposed collective are victims of an unlawful employment practice or policy.” The allegations by the plaintiffs presented so far, the judge said, are enough to meet that “modest evidentiary burden at this early stage.”

The initial lawsuit said of drivers at Risinger that they all assigned an independent contractor agreement with Risinger; they operate under the company’s logo and DOT number; get their assignments from a Risinger dispatcher; are “required to make deliveries within set time windows”; and have a set per mile rate for payment.

Specific categories The members of the proposed class fall into several categories, according to the lawsuit.

Risinger’s response in an earlier filing provided what it sees as the specific categories of independent contractors at the carrier: lease-purchase drivers, owner-operator drivers, team drivers, third-party carrier drivers, one-way carrier drivers, and brokerage carrier drivers.

The classifications in the lawsuit are important because one of Risinger’s counter-arguments is that a class action is inappropriate because of the differences in what the various independent contractor categories do.

As the subheading of a legal document Risinger filed in connection with the lawsuit says, “The proposed collective encompasses six different categories of drivers with fundamentally different operations,” the company’s brief said. That can be worked out later, Judge Hawley said.

“Perhaps Risinger can later argue that certain drivers are subject to different measures of damages based on their specific deductions, hours worked, responsibilities, investment in equipment, control over their work schedule, or other factors,” he wrote. “But such arguments are not a barrier to permitting collective class notice.”

The original lawsuit filed by Contreras was not as specific about the number of categories, but said each of them has at least 40 individuals who could be part of the class action. The arguments in the original lawsuit filed in October are familiar to followers of other cases involving truck drivers and the question of independent classification.

Been here before The fundamental argument in the case is well-trod ground for trucking attorneys. It is that a driver signs on with a carrier on some sort of lease arrangement with theoretically the freedom to carry out his or her duties with some degree of freedom and grow a business on top of working with the carrier.

But instead they are micro-managed as if they are employees while bearing costs in a lease-purchase or some other type of agreement, the numbers add up and the amount of money they get paid isn’t even equivalent to minimum wage. If those drivers are found to be truly independent contractors, ICs aren’t entitled to the minimum wage.

The original lawsuit lays out the allegations of Contreras, describing a relationship with Risinger that permitted little flexibility in his ability to get the job done as he saw fit or pursue other business other than with Risinger.

“Throughout the course of Plaintiff’s employment, Risinger made deductions from his pay for items including truck payments, insurance payments, fuel, and a maintenance escrow account among others, which often came to hundreds of dollars per week,” the original lawsuit said. “(Contrerars) did not authorize these deductions.”

Once the number in the paycheck post-deduction was compared to the number of hours worked, according to the original lawsuit, “there were weeks in which Plaint