The Virginia Supreme Court recently made a significant ruling regarding Amazon Flex drivers, classifying them as employees rather than independent contractors. This decision came after Amazon Logistics attempted to change its argument in court after losing earlier decisions on the same matter.
The case began when a Flex driver, Donald Diggs, filed for unemployment benefits. He provided 1099 forms from Amazon, which showed that taxes were not deducted from his earnings. This raised questions about Amazon’s tax responsibilities and whether Diggs and other drivers should be classified as employees.
During a hearing in May 2020, evidence was presented, including Amazon’s Flex contract and testimony from both Diggs and an Amazon manager. The hearing examiner concluded that Amazon exercised enough control over its Flex drivers to classify them as employees. The Virginia Employment Commission agreed, stating that Amazon should pay unemployment payroll taxes for all Flex drivers who were misclassified.
Amazon appealed this decision, arguing that the ruling for Diggs should not apply to all Flex drivers. However, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that Amazon had initially sought a broad ruling that would classify all Flex drivers as independent contractors. The court criticized Amazon for shifting its position after losing, stating that such contradictions are not acceptable in legal proceedings.
The Supreme Court found that Amazon’s claims about procedural fairness were inconsistent with its earlier arguments. The court also noted that Amazon had not presented any evidence to suggest that Diggs’ contract differed from those of other drivers. Instead, Amazon had argued that all drivers should be treated the same, only to change its stance once the ruling was unfavorable.
Additionally, Amazon raised a new argument regarding a change in state law that occurred after the decision. The court did not consider this argument, stating that Amazon had not adequately addressed it in prior proceedings. However, the court did leave the door open for Amazon to seek a new hearing if circumstances change, such as a new law or contract terms.
This ruling highlights the ongoing debate over gig economy workers and their classification. As more companies rely on app-based labor, the question of employee versus contractor status continues to evolve, with significant implications for workers’ rights and employer responsibilities.