U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick has signed an approval on a $ 16.5 million proposed truck driver’s lawsuit against XPO Logistics LLC, as described in a Law 360 article posted on Aug. 14, 2021. That case, U.S. vs. James W. Proctor, is before the same court that heard Mr. Proctor’s initial lawsuit. The approval of the lawsuit by Judge William H. Orrick adds to the growing number of victories by truck drivers for compensation they have been able to obtain from Xpo Logistics.
According to the article, XPO Logistics was one of the first companies to recognize the need for a logistics operator certification in the trucking and delivery industry.
It then went on to design the Logistics Settlement Program (LSP) to help other logistics companies to address some of their own inadequacies. The program consists of a core curriculum and several elective modules, each devoted to one aspect of logistic operations. Among these is a module entitled “Knowledge in Operational Preventive Maintenance Activities.” This portion of the program addresses several types of safety and environmental compliance issues that arise in various sectors of the transportation industry, and how logistics companies can more effectively ensure their compliance with such regulations.
In its approval of the lawsuit, Judge William H. Orrick noted that the plaintiffs “lack standing to sue,” but then went on to opine that “properly construed, plaintiffs may recover monetary damages for pain and suffering, past and future medical care, economic losses, and other harms.”
According to the article, this opinion was later modified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a case called Knights of Columbus v. XPO Logistics LLC. In that opinion, the court declined to grant class certification to the plaintiffs, stating that XPO Logistics did not have the business model required to meet the requirements of a class lawsuit. Orrick specifically cited XPO Logistics’ ability to contract with suppliers of products and services in its role as an owner of a distribution company. As a result of that decision, Orrick stated, “There is no basis for a class-action lawsuit against the Company.”
But what of the merits of the case? Does XPO Logistics still has a case against the defendants? What about liability, and is the evidence against them sufficient to force the defendants into a settlement? And if so, is there a way to avoid a costly motion practice in a future case?
In reviewing the parties’ positions, we see that XPO Logistics did file a complaint against the defendants, but only in an attempt to describe the nature of the relationship between them, rather than making a claim for relief from liability.
At the time of filing, they held their main business headquarters in Ohio, and they sold a significant number of goods and services to customers throughout the United States. Further, in all but a very few circumstances, including one instance in which they provided services other than shipping (to a UPS store), they did not retain or employ any of the truck drivers who facilitated the shipping of the goods. Further, contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, it appears that there were a number of reasons for not retaining drivers for such work, including (but not limited to) the difficulty finding experienced drivers in the wake of the recent downturn in the US labor market. Finally, it should be noted that logistics companies throughout the supply chain already have systems in place to ensure that drivers do not go on strike, which eliminates any risk of such a contingency in the case of shipping.
Plaintiffs argue that the defendants have a general duty to maintain a safe environment for employees working for them, and that this obligation extends to activities related to shipping. Further, the defendants argue that they have a legal duty to supply their employees with reasonable accommodations and/or wages and benefits that would allow them to provide their employees with the assistance needed to enable them to pursue the objectives of their employment. In addition, the defendants argue that they have a general duty to prevent the incidence of harm to employees while on the employer’s premises, whether these activities are conducted by their employees or by someone else related to the company. In this regard, the logistic companies argue that plaintiffs’ complaints about being required to hire non-employee drivers and compensate them for travel expenses are without merit.
The defendants further argue that because plaintiffs have failed to establish that either (a) or (b) are conditions likely to result from their employment, and because they are legally required to maintain good workplace conditions, the case is legally barred from moving forward. They further argue that plaintiffs’ claim is premature as the shipping of goods remains the responsibility of their carriers, which have agreed to settle the case, rather than pursue it through the litigation process. Finally, the defendants submit that they will not lose any money if the case is dismissed as it would result in an expense for their insurers that would then be passed on to the defendant.