IntelliQuick Overtime and Minimum Wage Lawsuit

This website provides information about a nationwide employment dispute, Collinge v. IntelliQuick Deliveries, Inc., et al., for, among other things, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime to drivers or couriers whom the Defendants misclassified as independent contractors.

This suit also seeks reimbursement for allegedly unlawful deductions made from the drivers’ paychecks for mandatory weekly fees and arbitrary “charge-backs” or fines for alleged errors or requests to take time off for personal or family medical leave (read the Complaint).

This case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on April 19, 2012. This lawsuit is brought as a class and collective action on behalf of current and former drivers or couriers who worked for IntelliQuick Deliveries, Inc. and were classified as “independent contractors.” The lawsuit was brought by current and former IntelliQuick Drivers. The suit seeks unpaid overtime, wages, and other damages from the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.; the Arizona wage statute, A.R.S. § 23-350, et seq.; and the Arizona minimum wage law, A.R.S. §§ 23-363 et seq.

Becoming a Plaintiff

Delivery drivers and couriers who worked for IntelliQuick at any location on or after April 9, 2009, may be entitled to participate in this lawsuit and claim unpaid wages by "opting-in” to the case.

If you would like more information or have questions about the case, please call the Martin & Bonnett law firm at 602-240-6900, or send us a message via our online form.

More About the Lawsuit

The Complaint alleges IntelliQuick has knowingly misclassified its drivers or couriers as independent contractors and failed to pay them statutorily required minimum wages and overtime wages and made unlawful deductions from the drivers’ earned compensation. The Complaint also alleges Defendants have improperly classified the drivers as “independent contractors,” even though the Defendants act as the drivers’ employers and control almost every aspect of their work. The Complaint further alleges Defendants operate a scheme to treat the drivers as independent contractors and shift some of defendants’ business expenses to their employees. The Complaint also alleges that Defendants require Plaintiffs to pay a weekly fee for use of Defendants’ scanners, secondary insurance and mandatory uniform laundry fees (even if the drivers do not use the laundry service). The Complaint also alleges that Defendants require Plaintiffs to pay for gas and maintenance of their own vehicles that are used to make deliveries for Defendants. The Complaint also alleges that Defendants charge each driver over a thousand dollars per year to issue their weekly paychecks.

The Complaint further alleges Defendants benefit greatly by misclassifying their drivers or couriers as independent contractors. The lawsuit claims that by treating the drivers as independent contractors instead of employees, Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in a scheme to avoid worker’s compensation and unemployment payments, social security, other payroll taxes owed by employers, and other benefits otherwise owed to employees. The Complaint also alleges Defendants have attempted and continue to attempt to avoid liability under wage protection statutes, federal labor laws, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII),the Equal Pay Act (EPA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) and other statutes. The lawsuit claims that Defendants have shifted and continue to shift the cost of their business expenses to their employees and are able to obtain a competitive advantage over competitor services that treat drivers and couriers as employees in compliance with the law. The Complaint alleges that as a result of these practices, Defendants are unjustly enriched and drive down wages and undercut fair labor practices across the industry.

The Complaint asserts that because the drivers are “employees” rather than “independent contractors,” the drivers are owed wages under federal and state minimum wage laws, are owed overtime wages (time and a half) for all hours worked over forty hours in a workweek, and must be reimbursed for all deductions made from their pay, including service fines or “charge-backs,” weekly equipment fees, weekly laundry fees, weekly insurance fees, and weekly paycheck processing fees.

Read the Complaint.


Share by: