In Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corporation, another recent delivery driver case that arose in California, Affinity Logistics' drivers claimed they were employees and had been misclassified as independent contractors. The trial court ruled that the drivers were independent contractors since each had its own business name, business license, commercial checking account, federal employer identification number, and could hire its own employees, if it wished.
But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding the drivers were all employees. The appellate court emphasized that Affinity Logistics had the right to control the details of the drivers' work.
Affinity Logistics controlled their rates, schedules and routes; provided the trucks the drivers drove; controlled the mobile phones they used; specified the uniforms the drivers had to wear; and closely monitored the drivers through morning meetings, setting start times, inspecting their appearance and loading of trucks, conducting follow-alongs and customer interviews and requiring drivers to call a company supervisor after every two or three stops.
The appellate court rejected the drivers' indicia of being independent (business names, tax ID numbers, etc.) as determinate factors because Affinity Logistics required the drivers to take these steps. For these reasons, the appellate court ruled the drivers were employees, not independent contractors.
Parties to franchise agreements should be mindful of the level of control the franchisor exercises over its franchisees to avoid jeopardizing the independent contractor relationships.
Click Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corporation to read the 9th Circuit Court decision.