Online Retailer and Delivery Vendor Sued as Joint Employers for Overtime Wages
Time 2 Minute Read
Categories: Class Action

Earlier this month, a group of former delivery drivers filed a putative collective action lawsuit against an online retailer and Courier Logistics Services, LLC (“CLS”). The case is pending before the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs allege that the two companies willfully misclassified them as independent contractors and denied overtime pay properly due under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

As alleged in the complaint, the plaintiffs and other similarly situated drivers were engaged to perform rapid deliveries to mobile app customers. Plaintiffs, wearing shirts and hats bearing the online retailer’s logo, reported to the company’s warehouse 15 minutes before their shift was to begin, checked in with the dispatcher and received their deliveries for the day (which they allegedly could not refuse). Each driver carried a smart phone provided by both companies that was preloaded with the rapid delivery mobile application. The application provided drivers’ routes and directions each day and permitted packages and drivers to be tracked. Drivers drove their personal vehicles. Drivers concluded each day back at the warehouse, where they checked in with the dispatcher. Each of the plaintiffs earned $16 per hour.

The plaintiffs sued both companies under a joint employer theory. In support of that theory, the complaint alleges that the online retailer and CLS each could (1) hire or fire delivery drivers, (2) set drivers’ wages, (3) control the manner in which they performed their work, and (4) control their working conditions. The complaint further alleges that each company suffered or permitted the plaintiffs to work and engaged them to perform work. The plaintiffs claim they understood that they worked for both entities “as a whole,” not just one entity.

Numerous retailers have been sued as joint employers for alleged wage and hour violations in the last few years. This case is another reminder of the care with which companies should engage contractors to perform services, such as delivering goods. It is important to structure the relationship and services with the FLSA in mind. Doing so will help minimize the risk of liability to vendors’ employees on FLSA wage claims under the joint employer theory.

  • Partner

    For more than thirty years, Michael Brett Burns has represented leading employers and management in a wide range of employment and public accommodations-related matters. Brett’s practice focuses on employment class ...

  • Partner

    Bob is a litigator who represents businesses in resolving their complex labor, employment, trade secret, non-compete and related commercial disputes. He is recognized by Chambers USA as a leader in Labor & Employment, and as a Labor ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the 2024 amendment to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, limiting damages, applies retroactively to pending cases.

Time 3 Minute Read

The results are in: attorneys are filing more employment law cases in court.  Indeed, year-end reporting from legal databases like LexMachina confirm that the pace of filing new employment discrimination cases reached its highest level in 2025, surpassing 20,000 new filings nationwide.  Though overtime and minimum wage lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have continued to decline since 2015, discrimination cases under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are on the rise.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court decision determined that documents created by a criminal defendant using AI and subsequently shared with legal counsel were not shielded by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In USA v. Heppner, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York compelled the disclosure of 31 documents created with Anthropic’s Claude. This order was issued despite the defendant including information from counsel in the AI tool’s input and later providing the resulting outputs to his attorneys. The ruling offers early judicial perspective on privilege concerns involving AI-generated materials, an area where case law remains sparse.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court ruling held that AI-generated documents prepared by a defendant and later shared with legal counsel were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page