@1 Funny you should mention UPS. Did you know that UPS drivers used to be (if not still are) classified as “independent contractors” and then they successfully sued UPS for employee status in 20 separate states. Their complaints were very similar to these.

More closely, there’s a lawsuit in Phoenix where Yellow Cab is being sued by drivers as being classified as independent contractors when drivers can buy multiple “medallions” and have employees or renters of their own.

But, this lawsuit isn’t over that. They’re looping in Amazon because, I imagine, Amazon is “JungleTrax”’s one customer. If JungleTrax has more than one client, they should be held responsible for their wage violations and, if those costs came due to Amazon priorities, pass those costs on to Amazon.

@1-3:

If they're simply third-party contractors, then WHY are they being recruited by an Amazon-owned website sporting an Amazon copyright and logo? If it walks like Amazon, passes itself off as Amazon, is owned by Amazon, and uses Amazon graphics - it's a pretty good bet it IS Amazon, regardless of what some PR flack asserts.

@5:

Okay, my bad on that one, point to you.

But that doesn't negate the fact that Amazon, not Jungle Trux, controls ALL aspects of their work: how they work, when they work, where they work. even what they wear when working, which makes Amazon their de facto employer. They're not wearing Jungle Trux uniforms, they're not reporting to Jungle Trux distribution centers, and they're not delivery packages for Jungle Trux - it's Amazon all the way up the chain. Additionally, prior case law (e.g. Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., F. 3d. 9th Cir. 8/27/14, Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc, 154 Cal.App.4th 1, 10 Cal. Ct. App. 2007, et al) has already established a strong legal precedent in support of their claim.

@7:

Why should Amazon be dismissed as a co-defendant? Their name, their logo, their properties, their services, and their work policies are 100% driving Jungle Trux's operations; without Amazon Jungle Trux most likely wouldn't exist, since so far as I can determine at least, they don't appear to contract for delivery services with any company other than Amazon.

What the hell are you guys talking about? UPS drivers are Teamsters, all of them, almost always have been. For crap sake, get your facts straight. Do you mean to say Fed Ex? Kind of a big difference there.

Well, looking at this. The companies that deliver for Amazon Contractor page. https://logistics.amazon.com/

As stated: Q: Are drivers independent contractors or employees of the delivery provider? A: Drivers must be employees of the delivery provider.

Q: Do vehicles have to be branded? A: No, most trucks don't need to be branded. For any routes that do require trucks to be wrapped with Amazon branding, you may be entitled to receive a brand promotion fee.

@9 FedEx Lost big. Here is that http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/com…">lawsuit where they were mislabeling employees. And I believe you’re right. I think the few articles I found for the ups lawsuit were exchanging fedex for ups as the lawsuits seem to point to starting at the same time.

And, @3, I think my point stands. If JungleTrux, which was formed in 2017, is barely a shell company to protect Amazon from liability (hell, the company was formed barely four months ago), then there is precedent for Amazon to be included.

As I said above, if Jungle Trux has more than one client, and is a legitimate diversified and separate company from Amazon, then Amazon is purely a client and that part of the lawsuit will be dismissed. If Jungle Trux only has Amazon as a single client, then this is a shell game of contractors and there is precedent for Amazon being involved in the lawsuit.