Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE STATUS—C.D. Ill.: Trucking company denied dismissal of wage claims of drivers with contractor agreements, (Mar 24, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The court will not heavily consider the label given to the drivers in the parties independent contractor agreements.

A trucking company was not entitled to dismissal of claims brought by drivers alleging that it violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the FLSA when it withheld wages after improperly characterizing the drivers as independent contractors, ruled a federal district court in Illinois. As an initial matter, the court denied the employer’s assertion that the parties’ independent contractor agreement authorized a variety of deductions. Further, given the level of control the employer allegedly exercised over the drivers, the court found that they plausibly alleged an employer-employee relationship (Contreras v. Risinger Bros. Transfer, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01441 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2026)).

Deductions from pay. The plaintiffs in this action allege that they signed independent-contractor agreements to perform deliveries for the employer. They drove the employer’s trucks (embroidered with its insignia), worked full time, regularly checked in with the employer’s dispatchers, and were paid a set-rate per mile. According to the drivers, the employer deducted from their paychecks “truck payments, insurance payments, fuel, and a maintenance escrow account among others, which often came to hundreds of dollars per week.” After these deductions, the drivers allege, there were weeks in which pay fell below minimum wage.

The drivers filed this class action lawsuit, alleging that they were mischaracterized as independent contractors. According to the drivers, the employer committed violations of Illinois and federal wage laws, particularly the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and the FLSA. The employer moved to dismiss the drivers’ claims, arguing that they were independent contractors, and not entitled to the protections of the IWPCA, Illinois’ minimum wage law, or the FLSA’s minimum wage requirement. The drivers argued that their independent contractor characterization did not reflect the economic reality of the parties’ employment relationship.

State-law claims. As an initial matter, the drivers alleged that the employer made “unauthorized deductions from employees’ wages,” and that the employer failed to reimburse them for expenditures they incurred.

In its motion, the employer argued that because the drivers signed independent-contractor agreements, the IWPCA did not protect them. Further, it argued that the drivers approved each of the deductions and expenditures by opting into the Defendant’s “incentive program” contained in the independent-contractor agreements.

Here, the drivers sufficiently pleaded that the employer made unauthorized deductions to their pay and made inappropriate expenditures. The employer pointed to the independent-contractor agreements and asserted that they authorize a variety of deductions, but the court disagreed that the deductions were necessarily authorized. At the motion to dismiss stage, it was sufficient for the drivers to plead that the employer made inappropriate expenditures and unauthorized deductions from their guaranteed wages.

Minimum wage claims. Next, the court evaluated claims under the IMWL and FLSA, that the employer failed to pay minimum wage for all hours worked. The employer argued that the drivers were independent contractors pursuant to the parties’ agreements. In response, the drivers assert that the “economic reality” of their relationship with the employer was that of employee-employer. They highlighted the control exercised by the employer, the equipment used by them, and other factors that indicate employee status.

Economic reality test. Under the FLSA, courts in the Seventh Circuit consider six non-exhaustive factors to determine the economic reality of an employment relationship: “1) the nature and degree of the alleged employer’s control as to the manner in which the work is to be performed; 2) the alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss depending upon his managerial skill; 3) the alleged employee’s investment in equipment or materials required for his task, or employment of workers; 4) whether the service rendered requires a special skill; 5) the degree of permanency and duration of the working relationship; and 6) the extent to which the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer’s business.”

Further, the IMWL so closely parallels the FLSA that courts have generally interpreted their provisions to be coextensive and so have generally applied the same analysis to both.

Here, the court found that at the motion to dismiss stage, the drivers plausibly alleged that they were employees rather than independent contractors. In particular, the drivers alleged that they drove trucks and trailers which were owned by the employer and which had its insignia on them; they did not work anywhere else while working for the employer; they were required to regularly check in with the employer’s dispatchers to take their instructions; they were also required to comply with the employer’s time constraints for deliveries and other instructions and were required to report to the employer’s staff; and the employer required the drivers to comply with written and unwritten policies, procedures and directives.

Accordingly, the employer’s motion to dismiss was denied.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-01441.

Judge: Hawley, J.

Attorneys: Harold Lichten (Lichten & Liss-Riordan) for Michael Contreras and Willie McGee. Daniel Lawrence Stanner (Tabet DiVito & Rothstein) for Risinger Bros Transfer, Inc.

Companies: Risinger Bros. Transfer, Inc.

Cases: EmployeeStatus WageHour MinimumWage Overtime StateLawClaims IllinoisNews