Wisconsin Supreme Court Won't Overturn Lower Court Order Regarding Amazon Delivery Drivers

Wednesday, March 27th, 2024 -- 9:01 AM

(Rich Kremer, Wisconsin Public Radio) The Wisconsin Supreme Court will not overturn a lower court order declaring Amazon delivery drivers are employees rather than contractors, meaning the company could be on the hook for more than $200,000 in delinquent unemployment taxes.

According to Rich Kremer with Wisconsin Public Radio, the dispute between Amazon Logistics, Inc., a subsidiary of Amazon, and multiple state agencies stems from a 2018 audit by the Department of Workforce Development.

The audit looked at workplace practices of more than 1,000 people working for the company, which operates under a model similar to companies like Uber and Doordash.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, saying its review was “improvidently granted” by justices, despite oral arguments being held in December 2023. That means the court has found it shouldn’t have accepted the appeal in the first place.

The majority opinion didn’t offer any reasoning behind its decision. In concurring opinions, liberal Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley argued about whether the court should provide its rationale for the dismissal.

Walsh Bradley said an explanation is “the least we can do when the litigants have expended substantial effort and resources arguing the case before us.” She said the “dearth of explanation has been the court’s pattern for the past seven years.”

After reviewing a 2023 state appeals court ruling along with briefs and oral arguments from the company and state attorneys, Walsh Bradley said she agrees justices “improvidently granted” the Supreme Court review “because the issues for which we took this fact-dependent case will not lead to any further development of the law.”

“Thus, further review by this court and publication of an opinion would not serve any meaningful purpose,” Walsh Bradley said. Justice Rebecca Bradley said it’s customary for the Supreme Court not to offer explanations when justices find their review of such a case was “improvidently granted.”

She said Justice Walsh Bradley’s explanation “does not, however, restore the hours worked or the money spent on this case by the parties.”

Feel free to contact us with questions and/or comments.