In a recent case, the 8th Circuit, relying on Missouri law and the Restatement of Agency, found that a person who is employed by a party having a contact with FedEx Ground was actually an employee of FedEx. In reversing a finding of summary judgment for FedEx, the Court pointed to a number of factors that showed that FedEx retained control, at least over some, of the “means and methods used by the contractor and its drivers to achieve the contact’s stated objectives.” The most significant was that the tasks performed by the drivers were part of the “regular business of FedEx.” The contract also required the drivers to look and act like FedEx employees while they performed the services. They were required to wear FedEx approved uniforms and use trucks that were identified with FedEx. The trucks were required to be presentable and free of body damage and extraneous markings. FedEx also reserved the right to monitor the contractor’s safety practices as well as the power to actually drug or alcohol test. The length of time the contracted employee “worked” for FedEx, which in this case was in excess of four years, was also considered to be a factor. In conclusion, the Court determined that the terms of the written agreement and the injured party’s own declarations and documents showing that FedEx tested the driver and checked into his background before he was hired, would support a reasonable inference. A jury finding that FedEx had the right to control his performance, and was his employer, could be supported. Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., et al (8th Cir. 2010)