Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Alexander v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit2014Docket #1165557
765 F.3d 981 2014 WL 4211107 Labor Law Agency Law Contracts

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

Labor Law Focus
4 min read

tl;dr: FedEx classified its delivery drivers as independent contractors. The Ninth Circuit held they were employees as a matter of law, finding FedEx’s extensive control over their work, appearance, and vehicles outweighed the contractual label and purported entrepreneurial opportunities.

Legal Significance: This case is a leading modern application of the common law right-to-control test, demonstrating that contractual disclaimers are not dispositive when a company exercises pervasive control over workers who are integral to its core business.

Alexander v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

A class of approximately 2,300 FedEx delivery drivers in California sued FedEx, alleging they were misclassified as independent contractors and were owed employment expenses and unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. The relationship was governed by an Operating Agreement (OA) that explicitly labeled drivers as independent contractors and stated FedEx had no authority to control the “manner and means” of their work. In practice, FedEx exercised significant control. Drivers were required to wear FedEx uniforms, adhere to specific grooming standards, and use FedEx-approved vehicles painted a specific “FedEx white” with the company logo. FedEx also dictated vehicle dimensions, including the precise measurements of interior shelving. While not setting exact hours, FedEx structured drivers’ workloads to ensure 9.5- to 11-hour workdays and controlled when drivers could leave and had to return to the terminal. FedEx assigned drivers to specific service areas, which it could reconfigure at its sole discretion. Although drivers could hire helpers or operate multiple routes, they could only do so with FedEx’s consent. The OA also required drivers to “foster the professional image and good reputation of FedEx.”

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Under California’s common law right-to-control test, are FedEx delivery drivers who are subject to a detailed operating agreement employees or independent contractors as a matter of law?

The drivers are employees as a matter of law. The court reversed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Under California’s common law right-to-control test, are FedEx delivery drivers who are subject to a detailed operating agreement employees or independent contractors as a matter of law?

Conclusion

This decision reinforces that under California law, the reality of a company's Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irur

Legal Rule

Under California law, the principal test for an employment relationship is whether Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut ali

Legal Analysis

The court's analysis centered on the primary factor of the *Borello* test: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • FedEx drivers are employees, not independent contractors, under California’s Borello right-to-control
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur si

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?