1012-00004 · Stonefield Logistics Group · Pleadings & Court Filings

declaration-of-dennis-faulkner.docx DOCUMENT Finance & Banking

29 / 35 ← → ✕

Contract analysis Extract to table

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

MARCUS DELANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-RBC

Hon. Rebecca Chen, U.S. District Judge

DECLARATION OF DENNIS FAULKNER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION

I, Dennis Faulkner, hereby declare and state as follows:

I. Introduction and Identification of Declarant

1. My name is Dennis Faulkner. I am over eighteen (18) years of age, competent to testify, and I make this declaration based upon my personal knowledge. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the facts set forth herein. I make this declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

2. I am currently employed as the Hub Manager of the Fort Worth Distribution Hub, internally designated as "HUB-01," operated by Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. ("SLG" or "the Company"). SLG is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 4200 Commerce Gateway Blvd., Suite 800, Irving, Texas 75039. The Fort Worth Distribution Hub where I serve as Hub Manager is located at 1015 Railhead Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76106.

3. I submit this declaration in support of Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff Marcus Delano's Motion for Conditional Certification Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration, including the day-to-day operations at HUB-01, the work patterns and engagement of drivers at HUB-01, the named plaintiff Marcus Delano's performance history and work patterns, and the material differences between HUB-01 and other SLG distribution hubs.

II. Background and Qualifications

4. I have served as Hub Manager of HUB-01 since June 2019, a period of more than six years. Prior to assuming the Hub Manager role, I served as an Operations Coordinator at SLG's Irving headquarters from February 2017 through May 2019, where I assisted with logistics planning, driver engagement processes, and hub-level support across the Company's Texas operations. In total, I have been employed by Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. for approximately eight years.

5. Before joining SLG, I spent eleven years in the logistics and transportation industry. From 2006 through 2012, I worked as a fleet dispatcher and later as an operations supervisor for Redline Transport Services, a regional freight carrier based in Arlington, Texas. From 2012 through 2016, I served as the regional operations manager for CrossPoint Delivery Solutions, a last-mile delivery company operating throughout the Dallas–Fort Worth metropolitan area. In that role, I oversaw a fleet of approximately 90 delivery drivers and managed relationships with major e-commerce and retail clients. My experience in the logistics and transportation industry spans approximately nineteen years.

6. In my role as Hub Manager of HUB-01, I am responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Fort Worth distribution hub. My responsibilities include oversight of delivery logistics at the hub level, administration of driver onboarding processes, coordination with SLG's corporate office, management of hub-level staffing and administration, and ensuring that quality and safety standards are maintained across the hub's operations. I report directly to Trevor Sandoval, Vice President of Operations for SLG.

7. During the relevant period identified in Plaintiff's motion — April 30, 2022 through the present — approximately 142 unique drivers signed Independent Contractor Operating Agreements ("ICOAs") with SLG and performed delivery services out of HUB-01. Not all 142 drivers were active at any given time; the active driver count at HUB-01 has fluctuated throughout the relevant period based on seasonal demand, individual driver decisions regarding their level of engagement, and driver attrition and new onboarding.

III. Fort Worth Hub (HUB-01) Operations Overview

8. HUB-01 is one of fourteen (14) SLG distribution hubs operating across four states: Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas. The fourteen hubs are designated HUB-01 through HUB-14 and are located in various metropolitan and regional markets across those states. Each hub operates semi-autonomously under the general oversight of corporate leadership, with day-to-day management entrusted to the individual hub manager at each location.

9. HUB-01 services three principal categories of delivery within the greater Fort Worth metropolitan area: (a) last-mile residential delivery, which involves the delivery of consumer packages to residential addresses; (b) regional freight delivery, which involves the transport and delivery of larger commercial shipments within the Fort Worth region; and (c) white-glove delivery, which involves the delivery, placement, and in some cases installation of furniture, large appliances, and other heavy or high-value items at residential and commercial locations.

10. The delivery types handled at HUB-01 represent a diverse mix of work. Standard last-mile deliveries and white-glove deliveries require materially different skill sets, involve different time commitments per delivery, and command different per-delivery compensation rates. White-glove deliveries, for example, frequently require two-person teams, specialized handling equipment, and extended on-site time for assembly or installation. The proportion of white-glove deliveries at HUB-01 is higher relative to certain other SLG hubs, as I discuss in greater detail below.

11. HUB-01's operational hours encompass a broad window. Deliveries generally occur within the timeframe of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, as set forth in the ICOAs. However, this window defines the period during which deliveries may be performed; it does not prescribe the specific hours, days, or number of hours that any individual driver is required to work. Drivers have the flexibility to choose which days they will work within the Monday-through-Saturday window and which delivery blocks they wish to accept within the broad daily timeframe. No driver is required to work every day within the Monday-through-Saturday window, and no driver is required to work throughout the entire 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM daily window.

12. Deliveries at HUB-01 are made available to drivers through SLG's proprietary dispatch and logistics platform known as "RouteSync." RouteSync is a software application that posts available deliveries for drivers to review. When deliveries become available at HUB-01, they are posted on RouteSync, and drivers may accept or decline individual deliveries based on their own preferences, availability, and business judgment. Deliveries are not assigned to drivers on a mandatory basis. The RouteSync platform displays relevant information about each delivery, including the delivery address, approximate package dimensions and weight, delivery type (standard or white-glove), the applicable per-delivery rate, and a suggested delivery window. Drivers then exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether to accept or decline each posted delivery.

13. Delivery volume at HUB-01 fluctuates seasonally, with peak volume occurring during the holiday season (approximately November through January) and lower volume during the spring and summer months. This seasonal variation is typical in the logistics industry but affects driver engagement patterns, earnings, and operational dynamics at HUB-01. Importantly, the delivery volume, geographic characteristics, route density, and delivery mix at HUB-01 differ materially from other SLG hubs, as I describe in further detail below.

IV. Driver Flexibility and Autonomy at HUB-01

A. Scheduling Flexibility

14. Drivers at HUB-01 are not required to work any specific days of the week. There is no minimum number of days per week that a driver must work, and there is no minimum number of hours per week that a driver must log. The decision regarding which days to work and how many hours to devote to SLG deliveries rests entirely with each individual driver.

15. Drivers choose which days they will work and which delivery blocks they wish to accept by reviewing the available deliveries posted on RouteSync and making their own selections. Some drivers at HUB-01 routinely work only two to three days per week, while others choose to work five to six days per week. The variation in days worked and hours logged among HUB-01 drivers is substantial and reflects the individual choices made by each driver based on their own personal circumstances, financial goals, and other commitments.

16. During my tenure as Hub Manager, I have personally observed that some drivers at HUB-01 regularly take extended periods of time away from performing deliveries — in some cases, weeks or even months — without any disciplinary consequence whatsoever. These absences do not require advance approval, are not subject to any formal leave or time-off request process, and do not result in any adverse action against the driver. Drivers who take extended time away from delivering are free to resume accepting deliveries on RouteSync whenever they choose, consistent with their independent contractor status under the ICOA.

17. There is no requirement at HUB-01 for drivers to request "time off" in the manner that an employee would request leave from an employer. Drivers do not submit time-off requests, and I do not approve or deny any such requests. Drivers simply choose not to accept deliveries on days when they do not wish to work. This system reflects the fundamental nature of the independent contractor relationship: drivers control their own schedules.

B. Route and Delivery Selection

18. When deliveries are posted on RouteSync, drivers at HUB-01 may accept or decline individual deliveries. This delivery selection process provides drivers with meaningful control over the type, volume, and geographic scope of the work they choose to perform on any given day. A driver may, for instance, choose to accept only standard last-mile deliveries and decline all white-glove deliveries on a particular day, or vice versa. A driver may choose to accept deliveries clustered in a particular geographic zone within the Fort Worth metropolitan area and decline deliveries in other zones.

19. Under the ICOA, drivers are subject to a minimum delivery acceptance rate of eighty-five percent (85%) calculated on a rolling thirty-day basis. This threshold is designed to ensure baseline service availability for SLG's clients and customers by ensuring that drivers who choose to engage with the RouteSync platform are accepting a reasonable proportion of available deliveries. The 85% threshold is not monitored on a delivery-by-delivery basis in real time at HUB-01. I do not receive alerts or notifications each time a driver declines a delivery. Rather, the acceptance rate is calculated automatically by the RouteSync system over the rolling thirty-day period, and I review aggregate acceptance rate data periodically.

20. If a driver's acceptance rate falls below the 85% threshold over a rolling thirty-day period, the ICOA provides for a "performance review." A performance review is a conversation between me (or another hub-level administrator) and the driver to discuss the driver's continued engagement with SLG. It is not a disciplinary proceeding in the sense associated with an employer-employee relationship. The purpose of the performance review is to understand whether the driver intends to continue performing deliveries for SLG and, if so, to discuss the driver's plans for availability going forward. In no case does a performance review result in a write-up, suspension, demotion, or similar employment-style discipline.

21. In practice at HUB-01, I have rarely found it necessary to initiate performance reviews for low acceptance rates. During the entire relevant period — April 30, 2022 through the present — I have initiated only approximately three to five (3–5) such performance reviews out of a pool of 142 drivers. The infrequency of these reviews reflects the reality that the vast majority of HUB-01 drivers naturally maintain acceptance rates well above the 85% threshold as a result of their own business decisions, and that the threshold itself is a relatively low bar that allows drivers substantial room to decline deliveries.

22. Drivers at HUB-01 have discretion over the sequencing of their accepted deliveries. RouteSync provides a suggested routing order based on algorithms that take into account distance, delivery windows, and traffic data. However, the suggested routing is precisely that — a suggestion. RouteSync does not mandate a fixed route order, and drivers are free to rearrange the sequence of their accepted deliveries as they see fit. In my experience managing HUB-01, drivers frequently and routinely deviate from the suggested RouteSync routing. They do so based on their own knowledge of local traffic patterns, their familiarity with particular neighborhoods and delivery addresses, their awareness of customer preferences (such as a customer who is more likely to be home at a certain time of day), and their personal efficiency judgments regarding the most effective order in which to complete their deliveries.

23. I have observed that experienced drivers at HUB-01 develop their own preferred routes and delivery sequences over time, drawing on their accumulated knowledge of the Fort Worth metropolitan area. This type of entrepreneurial route optimization is characteristic of an independent business operator making judgments about how to maximize efficiency and earnings, rather than a supervised employee following a prescribed route.

C. Subcontracting.

24. The ICOAs expressly permit drivers to subcontract their accepted deliveries to other individuals, subject to obtaining prior written approval from SLG. This right of subcontracting is a hallmark of an independent contractor relationship and is a meaningful contractual right available to all drivers at HUB-01.

25. At HUB-01, I have personally processed and approved subcontracting requests submitted by drivers. During the relevant period, approximately eight to twelve (8–12) subcontracting approvals were granted at HUB-01. The approval process involves verifying that the proposed substitute driver meets SLG's safety standards and vehicle specifications. Specifically, I review whether the proposed substitute possesses a valid driver's license, adequate insurance coverage, a vehicle that meets SLG's model year and safety inspection requirements, and a clean driving record. The purpose of the approval process is not to prohibit subcontracting or to render the subcontracting right illusory. Rather, the approval process serves to ensure that any substitute driver who performs deliveries on behalf of SLG meets the same quality and safety standards that are applicable to all drivers, thereby protecting SLG's clients, customers, and brand reputation.

26. I am aware that the named plaintiff, Marcus Delano, has alleged in his declaration that zero subcontracting approvals were granted during his tenure at HUB-01, or words to that effect. This allegation is inconsistent with the records and my personal knowledge. As stated above, I approved approximately eight to twelve subcontracting requests during the relevant period. Moreover, to my knowledge, Mr. Delano never submitted a subcontracting request during his entire engagement at HUB-01. The fact that Mr. Delano chose not to exercise his contractual right to subcontract does not mean that the right was unavailable or illusory. Other drivers at HUB-01 did exercise this right, and their requests were processed and approved in the ordinary course.

D. Use of Personal Vehicles and Equipment

27. Drivers at HUB-01 use their own personal vehicles to perform delivery services. Under the terms of the ICOA, drivers are required to provide a cargo van or box truck that is model year 2015 or newer and that has passed SLG's safety inspection. The vehicle must be registered and insured in the driver's name (or in the name of the driver's business entity, if applicable), and the driver must maintain all required state and local registrations and permits.

28. Drivers at HUB-01 bear all costs associated with their vehicles, including fuel, routine maintenance and repairs, insurance premiums, vehicle registration fees, tolls, and any other vehicle-related expenses. SLG does not reimburse drivers for any of these vehicle expenses. Drivers are also responsible for the cost and upkeep of any equipment they use in connection with deliveries, including hand trucks, dollies, furniture blankets, and strapping materials.

29. The requirement that drivers provide and maintain their own vehicles at their own expense represents a significant capital investment by each driver. Depending on the type and condition of the vehicle, drivers' investments in their vehicles can range from several thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars. This investment of capital and assumption of vehicle-related risk is consistent with independent contractor status and distinguishes the drivers' engagement with SLG from a typical employment relationship in which the employer provides the tools and equipment necessary to perform the work.

E. Multi-Platform Engagement

30. I am personally aware that multiple drivers at HUB-01 simultaneously perform delivery services for competing delivery platforms, other logistics companies, and independent freight operations during the same period that they are engaged with SLG. SLG does not prohibit drivers from working for competitors or other companies during the term of their ICOA engagement. The ICOA contains a post-termination non-compete provision (twelve-month duration, fifty-mile radius), but this provision applies only after the driver's engagement with SLG ends. During the term of the engagement, drivers are free to provide delivery services to any other company or platform, and many HUB-01 drivers avail themselves of this freedom.

31. During the relevant period, I am personally aware of at least fifteen to twenty (15–20) HUB-01 drivers who openly discussed or were known to me to be performing delivery work for other delivery services concurrently with their SLG engagement. These competing or complementary platforms and companies include major national delivery services, regional courier companies, and gig-economy platforms. Some drivers at HUB-01 treat their SLG engagement as one of multiple revenue streams, allocating their time among different delivery platforms based on which platform offers the most attractive deliveries on any given day. This ability to work for multiple companies simultaneously, and the actual exercise of that ability by a significant number of HUB-01 drivers, further demonstrates the independent nature of the drivers' engagement with SLG.

V. ICOA Version Distribution at HUB-01

32. During the relevant period, drivers at HUB-01 operated under three different versions of the Independent Contractor Operating Agreement. These versions differ in material respects, creating meaningful distinctions among drivers even within the same hub.

33. ICOA Version 1.0. The original ICOA template was drafted in 2018 by the law firm Pennfield & Daye LLP and was used for all driver engagements from SLG's inception through mid-2020. A subset of longer-tenured drivers at HUB-01, including the named plaintiff Marcus Delano, signed ICOA v1.0 and never transitioned to a later version. ICOA v1.0 does not contain an arbitration clause or a collective action waiver.

34. ICOA Version 2.0. In August 2020, SLG revised the ICOA template. ICOA v2.0 incorporated certain updated terms regarding delivery acceptance thresholds, subcontracting procedures, and compensation structures. A subset of drivers at HUB-01 who were engaged or re-engaged between August 2020 and December 2022 signed ICOA v2.0. Like ICOA v1.0, ICOA v2.0 does not contain an arbitration clause or collective action waiver.

35. ICOA Version 3.0. In January 2023, SLG undertook a comprehensive revision of the ICOA template. ICOA v3.0, which became effective on January 15, 2023, includes a mandatory arbitration clause and a collective action waiver, among other revised terms. The majority of drivers onboarded at HUB-01 after January 2023 signed ICOA v3.0. In addition, a number of existing drivers who were already engaged at HUB-01 under earlier ICOA versions signed ICOA v3.0 as part of a voluntary transition process.

36. I personally participated in the rollout of ICOA v3.0 at HUB-01. In January and February 2023, I communicated with active HUB-01 drivers regarding the updated ICOA terms and facilitated the voluntary signing process for existing drivers who chose to transition to the new version. Not all existing drivers chose to transition; some, including Mr. Delano, continued to operate under their earlier ICOA versions.

37. The material terms of these three ICOA versions differ in several significant respects beyond the arbitration clause and collective action waiver present only in v3.0. These differences include variations in compensation structures, delivery acceptance thresholds, subcontracting approval procedures, and other operational terms. As a result, even among drivers at the same hub — HUB-01 — drivers operated under different contractual frameworks, creating meaningful distinctions in the terms and conditions governing their respective engagements with SLG. These distinctions bear directly on the question of whether the putative collective members are similarly situated.

VI. Marcus Delano's Performance History and Work Patterns at HUB-01

A. Engagement Period

38. Marcus Delano performed delivery services for SLG out of the Fort Worth hub (HUB-01) from approximately March 2021 through September 2024. During the entirety of his engagement, Mr. Delano was classified as an independent contractor pursuant to the terms of his ICOA.

39. Mr. Delano signed ICOA v1.0, the 2018 version of the agreement originally drafted by Pennfield & Daye LLP. As noted above, ICOA v1.0 does not contain an arbitration clause or a collective action waiver. Mr. Delano never transitioned to ICOA v2.0 or ICOA v3.0 during his engagement at HUB-01, despite the voluntary transition opportunity offered in January 2023.

B. Delano's Work Patterns

40. Mr. Delano generally chose to work five to six days per week during his engagement at HUB-01. However, this level of engagement was Mr. Delano's personal choice and was not mandated or required by SLG. Other drivers at HUB-01 worked significantly fewer days per week, and no adverse consequence was imposed on drivers who chose to work fewer days.

41. Based on my review of RouteSync data and GPS telematics data associated with Mr. Delano's deliveries, Mr. Delano's average weekly hours during his engagement were approximately fifty-eight (58) hours. This figure was higher than many other drivers at HUB-01. The average weekly hours across all HUB-01 drivers varied significantly during the relevant period. Some drivers at HUB-01 averaged only twenty-five to thirty (25–30) hours per week, while others, like Mr. Delano, chose to work substantially more. This wide variation in weekly hours among HUB-01 drivers demonstrates that drivers exercised meaningful control over their own schedules and workload, and that the amount of time devoted to SLG deliveries was a function of each driver's individual business decisions rather than a uniform schedule imposed by SLG.

C. Delano's Delivery Acceptance and Route Behavior

42. Mr. Delano maintained a delivery acceptance rate that was generally above ninety percent (90%) during his engagement at HUB-01. While this was a high acceptance rate, it was Mr. Delano's personal choice to accept deliveries at this rate. The ICOA requires only an 85% acceptance rate on a rolling thirty-day basis, and other drivers at HUB-01 operated at or closer to the 85% threshold without any adverse consequence beyond the possibility of a performance review, as described above.

43. Mr. Delano did decline deliveries on certain occasions during his engagement, and he did not face any adverse consequence for doing so, beyond the general operation of the 85% rolling acceptance rate threshold applicable to all drivers. The fact that Mr. Delano chose to maintain an acceptance rate above 90% reflects his personal business decision to maximize his delivery volume and earnings, not a mandate imposed by SLG.

44. RouteSync data further shows that Mr. Delano frequently deviated from the suggested routing provided by the RouteSync platform. Mr. Delano chose his own delivery sequence on many occasions, rearranging the order of his accepted deliveries based on his personal judgment and local knowledge. This is consistent with the discretion afforded to all drivers at HUB-01 and demonstrates that Mr. Delano exercised the same type of autonomous decision-making that other drivers exercised in determining how to complete their deliveries.

D. Delano's Per-Delivery Compensation

45. Mr. Delano was compensated on a per-delivery basis, consistent with the terms of his ICOA. His per-delivery rates ranged from $14.50 to $38.00 per delivery, depending on the package weight, delivery distance, and delivery type (standard last-mile delivery versus white-glove delivery). White-glove deliveries, which involve furniture and large appliance placement or installation, commanded rates at the higher end of this range due to the additional skill, time, and effort involved.

46. Based on my review of SLG's pay records, Mr. Delano's average weekly gross pay during calendar year 2023 was approximately $1,247. Mr. Delano's earnings were a direct function of the number and type of deliveries he chose to accept. Drivers who accepted a higher proportion of white-glove deliveries, which paid at the upper end of the per-delivery rate range, earned more per delivery than drivers who primarily accepted standard last-mile deliveries. Similarly, drivers who chose to accept more deliveries in a given week earned more in gross compensation. Mr. Delano had the opportunity to increase his earnings by accepting higher-value deliveries, working more efficiently to complete deliveries in less time (thereby freeing up capacity for additional deliveries), or simply by accepting a larger volume of deliveries on any given day. This earnings structure reflects entrepreneurial opportunity, a hallmark of independent contractor status.

E. Subcontracting.

47. To my knowledge, Mr. Delano never submitted a request to subcontract any of his accepted deliveries during his entire engagement at HUB-01, a period of approximately three and a half years. As described above, the ICOA expressly provides drivers with the right to subcontract deliveries with prior written approval from SLG, and I approved approximately eight to twelve subcontracting requests from other HUB-01 drivers during the relevant period. The fact that Mr. Delano chose not to exercise this contractual right does not mean that the right was unavailable to him or that SLG's subcontracting approval process was a sham or barrier to subcontracting. Other drivers at HUB-01 successfully utilized the subcontracting provision, and Mr. Delano could have done so as well had he submitted a request.

F. Training.

48. Upon onboarding at HUB-01 in March 2021, Mr. Delano completed an initial sixteen-hour (16-hour) safety and customer-service orientation. This orientation covered topics including safe driving practices, proper package handling techniques, use of the RouteSync platform, SLG safety protocols, and customer interaction standards. Subsequently, Mr. Delano participated in quarterly four-hour (4-hour) refresher sessions, consistent with SLG's standard practice for all drivers.

49. These training and refresher sessions were focused on safety compliance, equipment handling, and customer interaction standards. Their purpose was to ensure that drivers possessed the knowledge and skills necessary to perform deliveries safely and to meet the quality standards expected by SLG's clients and customers. These sessions were not designed to exert the type of day-to-day, moment-to-moment control over the manner and means of work performance that is characteristic of an employment relationship. Rather, they are consistent with the type of quality and safety training that is commonplace in independent contractor relationships throughout the delivery and logistics industry, where safety and customer-facing quality assurance are paramount concerns regardless of the worker's classification.

G. Uniforms and Branding

50. Drivers at HUB-01, including Mr. Delano, were required to wear Stonefield-branded uniforms (a polo shirt bearing the SLG logo) and to display Stonefield-branded vehicle placards on their personal vehicles during the performance of deliveries. These branding requirements applied to all drivers at HUB-01 and at other SLG hubs.

51. I understand that branding requirements of this nature are common across independent contractor relationships in the delivery and logistics industry. Major delivery and logistics companies routinely require their independent contractor drivers to display company branding on their vehicles and to wear company-branded apparel during deliveries. These requirements serve customer-facing quality assurance purposes — ensuring that customers can identify authorized delivery personnel and building trust in the SLG brand — rather than indicating control over the manner and means by which drivers perform their work. A branding requirement does not dictate how a driver sequences deliveries, selects routes, manages time, or otherwise conducts the operational aspects of the delivery process.

VII. Differences Between HUB-01 and Other SLG Hubs

52. Although my primary responsibility is the management of HUB-01, I have general familiarity with operations at other SLG hubs throughout the Company's four-state footprint. This familiarity derives from my regular interactions with other hub managers during Company-wide operational meetings, my coordination with VP of Operations Trevor Sandoval on cross-hub initiatives and reporting, and my participation in the rollout of Company-wide policies and procedures, including the ICOA v3.0 rollout.

53. Based on my knowledge and experience, operations at HUB-01 differ from operations at other SLG hubs in several material respects:

(a) Delivery Mix. HUB-01 handles a higher proportion of white-glove deliveries compared to certain other SLG hubs. For example, HUB-03 (Houston) and HUB-02 (Dallas) have significantly higher volumes of standard last-mile package deliveries and a lower proportion of white-glove work. The delivery mix at a hub directly affects driver earnings, the time required per delivery, the skill sets needed, and the overall nature of the work performed by drivers at that hub. A driver who primarily performs white-glove deliveries at HUB-01 has a materially different day-to-day experience than a driver who primarily performs standard last-mile deliveries at HUB-03.

(b) Geographic Territory. The Fort Worth metropolitan delivery area served by HUB-01 has different route density, traffic patterns, and distance characteristics than the delivery areas served by hubs in other cities and states. For example, HUB-08 (Baton Rouge, Louisiana) and HUB-10 (Little Rock, Arkansas) serve delivery territories with different population densities, urban-suburban-rural mixes, and road networks. These geographic differences affect delivery times, vehicle wear and tear, fuel costs, and the practical flexibility that drivers have in sequencing and routing their deliveries.

(c) Driver Population Size. HUB-01 engaged approximately 142 unique drivers during the relevant period. This driver population size differs substantially from other hubs. HUB-03 (Houston), for instance, had approximately 195 drivers during the relevant period, while HUB-13 (Lubbock) had only approximately 29 drivers. These differences in driver population size create different operational dynamics. A hub with 29 drivers operates very differently from a hub with 195 drivers in terms of delivery availability, competition among drivers for deliveries, hub management intensity, and driver-manager interaction.

(d) Hub Management Practices. Each hub manager has discretion in how they interact with drivers, process subcontracting requests, administer the performance review process, and handle day-to-day operational decisions. Hub management practices are not uniform across all fourteen SLG hubs. The manner in which I manage HUB-01 — including the frequency and nature of driver communications, the approach to performance reviews, the processing of subcontracting requests, and the resolution of operational issues — may differ from the practices of hub managers at other locations. These management-level differences mean that drivers at different hubs may have materially different experiences even under the same ICOA version.

(e) State-Law Variations. SLG's fourteen hubs are located across four states: Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas. Hubs in Oklahoma (HUB-06, HUB-07), Louisiana (HUB-08, HUB-09, HUB-11), and Arkansas (HUB-10) operate under different state regulatory frameworks than the Texas-based hubs, including HUB-01. These regulatory differences encompass state-law standards for independent contractor classification, state wage-and-hour laws, state insurance and vehicle registration requirements, and other applicable state regulations. These variations further underscore that drivers across SLG's fourteen hubs are not operating under uniform conditions.

54. The material differences summarized above demonstrate that drivers across SLG's fourteen hubs are not similarly situated for purposes of a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Even within a single hub — HUB-01 — significant variations exist among drivers in terms of their schedules, hours worked, delivery types, compensation, ICOA versions, and individual work patterns. When these intra-hub variations are compounded by the inter-hub differences in delivery mix, geographic territory, driver population size, hub management practices, and state-law frameworks, the result is a proposed collective that encompasses a highly diverse and individualized group of workers whose classification and working conditions cannot be meaningfully resolved on a collective basis.

VIII. Declarant's Conclusion

55. Based on my personal knowledge and my experience managing the day-to-day operations of HUB-01 during the entire relevant period identified in Plaintiff's motion, I can attest that drivers at the Fort Worth hub exercise meaningful autonomy and flexibility in their work. This autonomy and flexibility encompasses control over their own scheduling, the selection and acceptance of individual deliveries, the sequencing and routing of their accepted deliveries, the use of their own personal vehicles and equipment, and the ability to work for competing delivery platforms and logistics companies concurrently with their SLG engagement. Drivers also have the contractual right to subcontract their deliveries, a right that has been exercised and approved at HUB-01 during the relevant period.

56. The named plaintiff Marcus Delano's individual experience — including his personal choice to work approximately fifty-eight hours per week, to maintain a delivery acceptance rate above 90%, and to work five to six days per week — reflects Mr. Delano's own personal decisions about how to operate his independent delivery business, not mandates imposed by SLG. Other drivers at HUB-01 made different choices, resulting in materially different work patterns, hours, earnings, and overall engagement profiles. Mr. Delano's experience is not representative of all HUB-01 drivers, let alone drivers across SLG's fourteen hubs.

57. Significant variations exist among drivers within HUB-01 — in terms of hours worked, days worked, delivery types accepted, ICOA versions, compensation levels, and utilization of contractual rights such as subcontracting — and between HUB-01 and other SLG hubs, in terms of delivery mix, geographic territory, driver population size, hub management practices, and applicable state-law frameworks. These variations demonstrate that the proposed collective of approximately 1,187 drivers across fourteen hubs in four states is not similarly situated for purposes of conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

58. I respectfully submit this declaration in support of Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification.

IX. Verification and Signature

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed at Fort Worth, Texas, this __ day of August, 2025.

________________________________________

Dennis Faulkner Hub Manager, Fort Worth Distribution Hub (HUB-01) Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. 1015 Railhead Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76106

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
MARCUS DELANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-RBC
Hon. Rebecca Chen, U.S. District Judge
DECLARATION OF DENNIS FAULKNER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION
I, Dennis Faulkner, hereby declare and state as follows:
I. Introduction and Identification of Declarant
1. My name is Dennis Faulkner. I am over eighteen (18) years of age, competent to testify, and I make this declaration based upon my personal knowledge. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the facts set forth herein. I make this declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
2. I am currently employed as the Hub Manager of the Fort Worth Distribution Hub, internally designated as "HUB-01," operated by Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. ("SLG" or "the Company"). SLG is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 4200 Commerce Gateway Blvd., Suite 800, Irving, Texas 75039. The Fort Worth Distribution Hub where I serve as Hub Manager is located at 1015 Railhead Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76106.
3. I submit this declaration in support of Defendant Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff Marcus Delano's Motion for Conditional Certification Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration, including the day-to-day operations at HUB-01, the work patterns and engagement of drivers at HUB-01, the named plaintiff Marcus Delano's performance history and work patterns, and the material differences between HUB-01 and other SLG distribution hubs.
II. Background and Qualifications
4. I have served as Hub Manager of HUB-01 since June 2019, a period of more than six years. Prior to assuming the Hub Manager role, I served as an Operations Coordinator at SLG's Irving headquarters from February 2017 through May 2019, where I assisted with logistics planning, driver engagement processes, and hub-level support across the Company's Texas operations. In total, I have been employed by Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. for approximately eight years.
5. Before joining SLG, I spent eleven years in the logistics and transportation industry. From 2006 through 2012, I worked as a fleet dispatcher and later as an operations supervisor for Redline Transport Services, a regional freight carrier based in Arlington, Texas. From 2012 through 2016, I served as the regional operations manager for CrossPoint Delivery Solutions, a last-mile delivery company operating throughout the Dallas–Fort Worth metropolitan area. In that role, I oversaw a fleet of approximately 90 delivery drivers and managed relationships with major e-commerce and retail clients. My experience in the logistics and transportation industry spans approximately nineteen years.
6. In my role as Hub Manager of HUB-01, I am responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Fort Worth distribution hub. My responsibilities include oversight of delivery logistics at the hub level, administration of driver onboarding processes, coordination with SLG's corporate office, management of hub-level staffing and administration, and ensuring that quality and safety standards are maintained across the hub's operations. I report directly to Trevor Sandoval, Vice President of Operations for SLG.
7. During the relevant period identified in Plaintiff's motion — April 30, 2022 through the present — approximately 142 unique drivers signed Independent Contractor Operating Agreements ("ICOAs") with SLG and performed delivery services out of HUB-01. Not all 142 drivers were active at any given time; the active driver count at HUB-01 has fluctuated throughout the relevant period based on seasonal demand, individual driver decisions regarding their level of engagement, and driver attrition and new onboarding.
III. Fort Worth Hub (HUB-01) Operations Overview
8. HUB-01 is one of fourteen (14) SLG distribution hubs operating across four states: Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas. The fourteen hubs are designated HUB-01 through HUB-14 and are located in various metropolitan and regional markets across those states. Each hub operates semi-autonomously under the general oversight of corporate leadership, with day-to-day management entrusted to the individual hub manager at each location.
9. HUB-01 services three principal categories of delivery within the greater Fort Worth metropolitan area: (a) last-mile residential delivery, which involves the delivery of consumer packages to residential addresses; (b) regional freight delivery, which involves the transport and delivery of larger commercial shipments within the Fort Worth region; and (c) white-glove delivery, which involves the delivery, placement, and in some cases installation of furniture, large appliances, and other heavy or high-value items at residential and commercial locations.
10. The delivery types handled at HUB-01 represent a diverse mix of work. Standard last-mile deliveries and white-glove deliveries require materially different skill sets, involve different time commitments per delivery, and command different per-delivery compensation rates. White-glove deliveries, for example, frequently require two-person teams, specialized handling equipment, and extended on-site time for assembly or installation. The proportion of white-glove deliveries at HUB-01 is higher relative to certain other SLG hubs, as I discuss in greater detail below.
11. HUB-01's operational hours encompass a broad window. Deliveries generally occur within the timeframe of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, as set forth in the ICOAs. However, this window defines the period during which deliveries may be performed; it does not prescribe the specific hours, days, or number of hours that any individual driver is required to work. Drivers have the flexibility to choose which days they will work within the Monday-through-Saturday window and which delivery blocks they wish to accept within the broad daily timeframe. No driver is required to work every day within the Monday-through-Saturday window, and no driver is required to work throughout the entire 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM daily window.
12. Deliveries at HUB-01 are made available to drivers through SLG's proprietary dispatch and logistics platform known as "RouteSync." RouteSync is a software application that posts available deliveries for drivers to review. When deliveries become available at HUB-01, they are posted on RouteSync, and drivers may accept or decline individual deliveries based on their own preferences, availability, and business judgment. Deliveries are not assigned to drivers on a mandatory basis. The RouteSync platform displays relevant information about each delivery, including the delivery address, approximate package dimensions and weight, delivery type (standard or white-glove), the applicable per-delivery rate, and a suggested delivery window. Drivers then exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether to accept or decline each posted delivery.
13. Delivery volume at HUB-01 fluctuates seasonally, with peak volume occurring during the holiday season (approximately November through January) and lower volume during the spring and summer months. This seasonal variation is typical in the logistics industry but affects driver engagement patterns, earnings, and operational dynamics at HUB-01. Importantly, the delivery volume, geographic characteristics, route density, and delivery mix at HUB-01 differ materially from other SLG hubs, as I describe in further detail below.
IV. Driver Flexibility and Autonomy at HUB-01
A. Scheduling Flexibility
14. Drivers at HUB-01 are not required to work any specific days of the week. There is no minimum number of days per week that a driver must work, and there is no minimum number of hours per week that a driver must log. The decision regarding which days to work and how many hours to devote to SLG deliveries rests entirely with each individual driver.
15. Drivers choose which days they will work and which delivery blocks they wish to accept by reviewing the available deliveries posted on RouteSync and making their own selections. Some drivers at HUB-01 routinely work only two to three days per week, while others choose to work five to six days per week. The variation in days worked and hours logged among HUB-01 drivers is substantial and reflects the individual choices made by each driver based on their own personal circumstances, financial goals, and other commitments.
16. During my tenure as Hub Manager, I have personally observed that some drivers at HUB-01 regularly take extended periods of time away from performing deliveries — in some cases, weeks or even months — without any disciplinary consequence whatsoever. These absences do not require advance approval, are not subject to any formal leave or time-off request process, and do not result in any adverse action against the driver. Drivers who take extended time away from delivering are free to resume accepting deliveries on RouteSync whenever they choose, consistent with their independent contractor status under the ICOA.
17. There is no requirement at HUB-01 for drivers to request "time off" in the manner that an employee would request leave from an employer. Drivers do not submit time-off requests, and I do not approve or deny any such requests. Drivers simply choose not to accept deliveries on days when they do not wish to work. This system reflects the fundamental nature of the independent contractor relationship: drivers control their own schedules.
B. Route and Delivery Selection
18. When deliveries are posted on RouteSync, drivers at HUB-01 may accept or decline individual deliveries. This delivery selection process provides drivers with meaningful control over the type, volume, and geographic scope of the work they choose to perform on any given day. A driver may, for instance, choose to accept only standard last-mile deliveries and decline all white-glove deliveries on a particular day, or vice versa. A driver may choose to accept deliveries clustered in a particular geographic zone within the Fort Worth metropolitan area and decline deliveries in other zones.
19. Under the ICOA, drivers are subject to a minimum delivery acceptance rate of eighty-five percent (85%) calculated on a rolling thirty-day basis. This threshold is designed to ensure baseline service availability for SLG's clients and customers by ensuring that drivers who choose to engage with the RouteSync platform are accepting a reasonable proportion of available deliveries. The 85% threshold is not monitored on a delivery-by-delivery basis in real time at HUB-01. I do not receive alerts or notifications each time a driver declines a delivery. Rather, the acceptance rate is calculated automatically by the RouteSync system over the rolling thirty-day period, and I review aggregate acceptance rate data periodically.
20. If a driver's acceptance rate falls below the 85% threshold over a rolling thirty-day period, the ICOA provides for a "performance review." A performance review is a conversation between me (or another hub-level administrator) and the driver to discuss the driver's continued engagement with SLG. It is not a disciplinary proceeding in the sense associated with an employer-employee relationship. The purpose of the performance review is to understand whether the driver intends to continue performing deliveries for SLG and, if so, to discuss the driver's plans for availability going forward. In no case does a performance review result in a write-up, suspension, demotion, or similar employment-style discipline.
21. In practice at HUB-01, I have rarely found it necessary to initiate performance reviews for low acceptance rates. During the entire relevant period — April 30, 2022 through the present — I have initiated only approximately three to five (3–5) such performance reviews out of a pool of 142 drivers. The infrequency of these reviews reflects the reality that the vast majority of HUB-01 drivers naturally maintain acceptance rates well above the 85% threshold as a result of their own business decisions, and that the threshold itself is a relatively low bar that allows drivers substantial room to decline deliveries.
22. Drivers at HUB-01 have discretion over the sequencing of their accepted deliveries. RouteSync provides a suggested routing order based on algorithms that take into account distance, delivery windows, and traffic data. However, the suggested routing is precisely that — a suggestion. RouteSync does not mandate a fixed route order, and drivers are free to rearrange the sequence of their accepted deliveries as they see fit. In my experience managing HUB-01, drivers frequently and routinely deviate from the suggested RouteSync routing. They do so based on their own knowledge of local traffic patterns, their familiarity with particular neighborhoods and delivery addresses, their awareness of customer preferences (such as a customer who is more likely to be home at a certain time of day), and their personal efficiency judgments regarding the most effective order in which to complete their deliveries.
23. I have observed that experienced drivers at HUB-01 develop their own preferred routes and delivery sequences over time, drawing on their accumulated knowledge of the Fort Worth metropolitan area. This type of entrepreneurial route optimization is characteristic of an independent business operator making judgments about how to maximize efficiency and earnings, rather than a supervised employee following a prescribed route.
C. Subcontracting.
24. The ICOAs expressly permit drivers to subcontract their accepted deliveries to other individuals, subject to obtaining prior written approval from SLG. This right of subcontracting is a hallmark of an independent contractor relationship and is a meaningful contractual right available to all drivers at HUB-01.
25. At HUB-01, I have personally processed and approved subcontracting requests submitted by drivers. During the relevant period, approximately eight to twelve (8–12) subcontracting approvals were granted at HUB-01. The approval process involves verifying that the proposed substitute driver meets SLG's safety standards and vehicle specifications. Specifically, I review whether the proposed substitute possesses a valid driver's license, adequate insurance coverage, a vehicle that meets SLG's model year and safety inspection requirements, and a clean driving record. The purpose of the approval process is not to prohibit subcontracting or to render the subcontracting right illusory. Rather, the approval process serves to ensure that any substitute driver who performs deliveries on behalf of SLG meets the same quality and safety standards that are applicable to all drivers, thereby protecting SLG's clients, customers, and brand reputation.
26. I am aware that the named plaintiff, Marcus Delano, has alleged in his declaration that zero subcontracting approvals were granted during his tenure at HUB-01, or words to that effect. This allegation is inconsistent with the records and my personal knowledge. As stated above, I approved approximately eight to twelve subcontracting requests during the relevant period. Moreover, to my knowledge, Mr. Delano never submitted a subcontracting request during his entire engagement at HUB-01. The fact that Mr. Delano chose not to exercise his contractual right to subcontract does not mean that the right was unavailable or illusory. Other drivers at HUB-01 did exercise this right, and their requests were processed and approved in the ordinary course.
D. Use of Personal Vehicles and Equipment
27. Drivers at HUB-01 use their own personal vehicles to perform delivery services. Under the terms of the ICOA, drivers are required to provide a cargo van or box truck that is model year 2015 or newer and that has passed SLG's safety inspection. The vehicle must be registered and insured in the driver's name (or in the name of the driver's business entity, if applicable), and the driver must maintain all required state and local registrations and permits.
28. Drivers at HUB-01 bear all costs associated with their vehicles, including fuel, routine maintenance and repairs, insurance premiums, vehicle registration fees, tolls, and any other vehicle-related expenses. SLG does not reimburse drivers for any of these vehicle expenses. Drivers are also responsible for the cost and upkeep of any equipment they use in connection with deliveries, including hand trucks, dollies, furniture blankets, and strapping materials.
29. The requirement that drivers provide and maintain their own vehicles at their own expense represents a significant capital investment by each driver. Depending on the type and condition of the vehicle, drivers' investments in their vehicles can range from several thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars. This investment of capital and assumption of vehicle-related risk is consistent with independent contractor status and distinguishes the drivers' engagement with SLG from a typical employment relationship in which the employer provides the tools and equipment necessary to perform the work.
E. Multi-Platform Engagement
30. I am personally aware that multiple drivers at HUB-01 simultaneously perform delivery services for competing delivery platforms, other logistics companies, and independent freight operations during the same period that they are engaged with SLG. SLG does not prohibit drivers from working for competitors or other companies during the term of their ICOA engagement. The ICOA contains a post-termination non-compete provision (twelve-month duration, fifty-mile radius), but this provision applies only after the driver's engagement with SLG ends. During the term of the engagement, drivers are free to provide delivery services to any other company or platform, and many HUB-01 drivers avail themselves of this freedom.
31. During the relevant period, I am personally aware of at least fifteen to twenty (15–20) HUB-01 drivers who openly discussed or were known to me to be performing delivery work for other delivery services concurrently with their SLG engagement. These competing or complementary platforms and companies include major national delivery services, regional courier companies, and gig-economy platforms. Some drivers at HUB-01 treat their SLG engagement as one of multiple revenue streams, allocating their time among different delivery platforms based on which platform offers the most attractive deliveries on any given day. This ability to work for multiple companies simultaneously, and the actual exercise of that ability by a significant number of HUB-01 drivers, further demonstrates the independent nature of the drivers' engagement with SLG.
V. ICOA Version Distribution at HUB-01
32. During the relevant period, drivers at HUB-01 operated under three different versions of the Independent Contractor Operating Agreement. These versions differ in material respects, creating meaningful distinctions among drivers even within the same hub.
33. ICOA Version 1.0. The original ICOA template was drafted in 2018 by the law firm Pennfield & Daye LLP and was used for all driver engagements from SLG's inception through mid-2020. A subset of longer-tenured drivers at HUB-01, including the named plaintiff Marcus Delano, signed ICOA v1.0 and never transitioned to a later version. ICOA v1.0 does not contain an arbitration clause or a collective action waiver.
34. ICOA Version 2.0. In August 2020, SLG revised the ICOA template. ICOA v2.0 incorporated certain updated terms regarding delivery acceptance thresholds, subcontracting procedures, and compensation structures. A subset of drivers at HUB-01 who were engaged or re-engaged between August 2020 and December 2022 signed ICOA v2.0. Like ICOA v1.0, ICOA v2.0 does not contain an arbitration clause or collective action waiver.
35. ICOA Version 3.0. In January 2023, SLG undertook a comprehensive revision of the ICOA template. ICOA v3.0, which became effective on January 15, 2023, includes a mandatory arbitration clause and a collective action waiver, among other revised terms. The majority of drivers onboarded at HUB-01 after January 2023 signed ICOA v3.0. In addition, a number of existing drivers who were already engaged at HUB-01 under earlier ICOA versions signed ICOA v3.0 as part of a voluntary transition process.
36. I personally participated in the rollout of ICOA v3.0 at HUB-01. In January and February 2023, I communicated with active HUB-01 drivers regarding the updated ICOA terms and facilitated the voluntary signing process for existing drivers who chose to transition to the new version. Not all existing drivers chose to transition; some, including Mr. Delano, continued to operate under their earlier ICOA versions.
37. The material terms of these three ICOA versions differ in several significant respects beyond the arbitration clause and collective action waiver present only in v3.0. These differences include variations in compensation structures, delivery acceptance thresholds, subcontracting approval procedures, and other operational terms. As a result, even among drivers at the same hub — HUB-01 — drivers operated under different contractual frameworks, creating meaningful distinctions in the terms and conditions governing their respective engagements with SLG. These distinctions bear directly on the question of whether the putative collective members are similarly situated.
VI. Marcus Delano's Performance History and Work Patterns at HUB-01
A. Engagement Period
38. Marcus Delano performed delivery services for SLG out of the Fort Worth hub (HUB-01) from approximately March 2021 through September 2024. During the entirety of his engagement, Mr. Delano was classified as an independent contractor pursuant to the terms of his ICOA.
39. Mr. Delano signed ICOA v1.0, the 2018 version of the agreement originally drafted by Pennfield & Daye LLP. As noted above, ICOA v1.0 does not contain an arbitration clause or a collective action waiver. Mr. Delano never transitioned to ICOA v2.0 or ICOA v3.0 during his engagement at HUB-01, despite the voluntary transition opportunity offered in January 2023.
B. Delano's Work Patterns
40. Mr. Delano generally chose to work five to six days per week during his engagement at HUB-01. However, this level of engagement was Mr. Delano's personal choice and was not mandated or required by SLG. Other drivers at HUB-01 worked significantly fewer days per week, and no adverse consequence was imposed on drivers who chose to work fewer days.
41. Based on my review of RouteSync data and GPS telematics data associated with Mr. Delano's deliveries, Mr. Delano's average weekly hours during his engagement were approximately fifty-eight (58) hours. This figure was higher than many other drivers at HUB-01. The average weekly hours across all HUB-01 drivers varied significantly during the relevant period. Some drivers at HUB-01 averaged only twenty-five to thirty (25–30) hours per week, while others, like Mr. Delano, chose to work substantially more. This wide variation in weekly hours among HUB-01 drivers demonstrates that drivers exercised meaningful control over their own schedules and workload, and that the amount of time devoted to SLG deliveries was a function of each driver's individual business decisions rather than a uniform schedule imposed by SLG.
C. Delano's Delivery Acceptance and Route Behavior
42. Mr. Delano maintained a delivery acceptance rate that was generally above ninety percent (90%) during his engagement at HUB-01. While this was a high acceptance rate, it was Mr. Delano's personal choice to accept deliveries at this rate. The ICOA requires only an 85% acceptance rate on a rolling thirty-day basis, and other drivers at HUB-01 operated at or closer to the 85% threshold without any adverse consequence beyond the possibility of a performance review, as described above.
43. Mr. Delano did decline deliveries on certain occasions during his engagement, and he did not face any adverse consequence for doing so, beyond the general operation of the 85% rolling acceptance rate threshold applicable to all drivers. The fact that Mr. Delano chose to maintain an acceptance rate above 90% reflects his personal business decision to maximize his delivery volume and earnings, not a mandate imposed by SLG.
44. RouteSync data further shows that Mr. Delano frequently deviated from the suggested routing provided by the RouteSync platform. Mr. Delano chose his own delivery sequence on many occasions, rearranging the order of his accepted deliveries based on his personal judgment and local knowledge. This is consistent with the discretion afforded to all drivers at HUB-01 and demonstrates that Mr. Delano exercised the same type of autonomous decision-making that other drivers exercised in determining how to complete their deliveries.
D. Delano's Per-Delivery Compensation
45. Mr. Delano was compensated on a per-delivery basis, consistent with the terms of his ICOA. His per-delivery rates ranged from $14.50 to $38.00 per delivery, depending on the package weight, delivery distance, and delivery type (standard last-mile delivery versus white-glove delivery). White-glove deliveries, which involve furniture and large appliance placement or installation, commanded rates at the higher end of this range due to the additional skill, time, and effort involved.
46. Based on my review of SLG's pay records, Mr. Delano's average weekly gross pay during calendar year 2023 was approximately $1,247. Mr. Delano's earnings were a direct function of the number and type of deliveries he chose to accept. Drivers who accepted a higher proportion of white-glove deliveries, which paid at the upper end of the per-delivery rate range, earned more per delivery than drivers who primarily accepted standard last-mile deliveries. Similarly, drivers who chose to accept more deliveries in a given week earned more in gross compensation. Mr. Delano had the opportunity to increase his earnings by accepting higher-value deliveries, working more efficiently to complete deliveries in less time (thereby freeing up capacity for additional deliveries), or simply by accepting a larger volume of deliveries on any given day. This earnings structure reflects entrepreneurial opportunity, a hallmark of independent contractor status.
E. Subcontracting.
47. To my knowledge, Mr. Delano never submitted a request to subcontract any of his accepted deliveries during his entire engagement at HUB-01, a period of approximately three and a half years. As described above, the ICOA expressly provides drivers with the right to subcontract deliveries with prior written approval from SLG, and I approved approximately eight to twelve subcontracting requests from other HUB-01 drivers during the relevant period. The fact that Mr. Delano chose not to exercise this contractual right does not mean that the right was unavailable to him or that SLG's subcontracting approval process was a sham or barrier to subcontracting. Other drivers at HUB-01 successfully utilized the subcontracting provision, and Mr. Delano could have done so as well had he submitted a request.
F. Training.
48. Upon onboarding at HUB-01 in March 2021, Mr. Delano completed an initial sixteen-hour (16-hour) safety and customer-service orientation. This orientation covered topics including safe driving practices, proper package handling techniques, use of the RouteSync platform, SLG safety protocols, and customer interaction standards. Subsequently, Mr. Delano participated in quarterly four-hour (4-hour) refresher sessions, consistent with SLG's standard practice for all drivers.
49. These training and refresher sessions were focused on safety compliance, equipment handling, and customer interaction standards. Their purpose was to ensure that drivers possessed the knowledge and skills necessary to perform deliveries safely and to meet the quality standards expected by SLG's clients and customers. These sessions were not designed to exert the type of day-to-day, moment-to-moment control over the manner and means of work performance that is characteristic of an employment relationship. Rather, they are consistent with the type of quality and safety training that is commonplace in independent contractor relationships throughout the delivery and logistics industry, where safety and customer-facing quality assurance are paramount concerns regardless of the worker's classification.
G. Uniforms and Branding
50. Drivers at HUB-01, including Mr. Delano, were required to wear Stonefield-branded uniforms (a polo shirt bearing the SLG logo) and to display Stonefield-branded vehicle placards on their personal vehicles during the performance of deliveries. These branding requirements applied to all drivers at HUB-01 and at other SLG hubs.
51. I understand that branding requirements of this nature are common across independent contractor relationships in the delivery and logistics industry. Major delivery and logistics companies routinely require their independent contractor drivers to display company branding on their vehicles and to wear company-branded apparel during deliveries. These requirements serve customer-facing quality assurance purposes — ensuring that customers can identify authorized delivery personnel and building trust in the SLG brand — rather than indicating control over the manner and means by which drivers perform their work. A branding requirement does not dictate how a driver sequences deliveries, selects routes, manages time, or otherwise conducts the operational aspects of the delivery process.
VII. Differences Between HUB-01 and Other SLG Hubs
52. Although my primary responsibility is the management of HUB-01, I have general familiarity with operations at other SLG hubs throughout the Company's four-state footprint. This familiarity derives from my regular interactions with other hub managers during Company-wide operational meetings, my coordination with VP of Operations Trevor Sandoval on cross-hub initiatives and reporting, and my participation in the rollout of Company-wide policies and procedures, including the ICOA v3.0 rollout.
53. Based on my knowledge and experience, operations at HUB-01 differ from operations at other SLG hubs in several material respects:
(a) Delivery Mix. HUB-01 handles a higher proportion of white-glove deliveries compared to certain other SLG hubs. For example, HUB-03 (Houston) and HUB-02 (Dallas) have significantly higher volumes of standard last-mile package deliveries and a lower proportion of white-glove work. The delivery mix at a hub directly affects driver earnings, the time required per delivery, the skill sets needed, and the overall nature of the work performed by drivers at that hub. A driver who primarily performs white-glove deliveries at HUB-01 has a materially different day-to-day experience than a driver who primarily performs standard last-mile deliveries at HUB-03.
(b) Geographic Territory. The Fort Worth metropolitan delivery area served by HUB-01 has different route density, traffic patterns, and distance characteristics than the delivery areas served by hubs in other cities and states. For example, HUB-08 (Baton Rouge, Louisiana) and HUB-10 (Little Rock, Arkansas) serve delivery territories with different population densities, urban-suburban-rural mixes, and road networks. These geographic differences affect delivery times, vehicle wear and tear, fuel costs, and the practical flexibility that drivers have in sequencing and routing their deliveries.
(c) Driver Population Size. HUB-01 engaged approximately 142 unique drivers during the relevant period. This driver population size differs substantially from other hubs. HUB-03 (Houston), for instance, had approximately 195 drivers during the relevant period, while HUB-13 (Lubbock) had only approximately 29 drivers. These differences in driver population size create different operational dynamics. A hub with 29 drivers operates very differently from a hub with 195 drivers in terms of delivery availability, competition among drivers for deliveries, hub management intensity, and driver-manager interaction.
(d) Hub Management Practices. Each hub manager has discretion in how they interact with drivers, process subcontracting requests, administer the performance review process, and handle day-to-day operational decisions. Hub management practices are not uniform across all fourteen SLG hubs. The manner in which I manage HUB-01 — including the frequency and nature of driver communications, the approach to performance reviews, the processing of subcontracting requests, and the resolution of operational issues — may differ from the practices of hub managers at other locations. These management-level differences mean that drivers at different hubs may have materially different experiences even under the same ICOA version.
(e) State-Law Variations. SLG's fourteen hubs are located across four states: Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas. Hubs in Oklahoma (HUB-06, HUB-07), Louisiana (HUB-08, HUB-09, HUB-11), and Arkansas (HUB-10) operate under different state regulatory frameworks than the Texas-based hubs, including HUB-01. These regulatory differences encompass state-law standards for independent contractor classification, state wage-and-hour laws, state insurance and vehicle registration requirements, and other applicable state regulations. These variations further underscore that drivers across SLG's fourteen hubs are not operating under uniform conditions.
54. The material differences summarized above demonstrate that drivers across SLG's fourteen hubs are not similarly situated for purposes of a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Even within a single hub — HUB-01 — significant variations exist among drivers in terms of their schedules, hours worked, delivery types, compensation, ICOA versions, and individual work patterns. When these intra-hub variations are compounded by the inter-hub differences in delivery mix, geographic territory, driver population size, hub management practices, and state-law frameworks, the result is a proposed collective that encompasses a highly diverse and individualized group of workers whose classification and working conditions cannot be meaningfully resolved on a collective basis.
VIII. Declarant's Conclusion
55. Based on my personal knowledge and my experience managing the day-to-day operations of HUB-01 during the entire relevant period identified in Plaintiff's motion, I can attest that drivers at the Fort Worth hub exercise meaningful autonomy and flexibility in their work. This autonomy and flexibility encompasses control over their own scheduling, the selection and acceptance of individual deliveries, the sequencing and routing of their accepted deliveries, the use of their own personal vehicles and equipment, and the ability to work for competing delivery platforms and logistics companies concurrently with their SLG engagement. Drivers also have the contractual right to subcontract their deliveries, a right that has been exercised and approved at HUB-01 during the relevant period.
56. The named plaintiff Marcus Delano's individual experience — including his personal choice to work approximately fifty-eight hours per week, to maintain a delivery acceptance rate above 90%, and to work five to six days per week — reflects Mr. Delano's own personal decisions about how to operate his independent delivery business, not mandates imposed by SLG. Other drivers at HUB-01 made different choices, resulting in materially different work patterns, hours, earnings, and overall engagement profiles. Mr. Delano's experience is not representative of all HUB-01 drivers, let alone drivers across SLG's fourteen hubs.
57. Significant variations exist among drivers within HUB-01 — in terms of hours worked, days worked, delivery types accepted, ICOA versions, compensation levels, and utilization of contractual rights such as subcontracting — and between HUB-01 and other SLG hubs, in terms of delivery mix, geographic territory, driver population size, hub management practices, and applicable state-law frameworks. These variations demonstrate that the proposed collective of approximately 1,187 drivers across fourteen hubs in four states is not similarly situated for purposes of conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
58. I respectfully submit this declaration in support of Stonefield Logistics Group Inc.'s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification.
IX. Verification and Signature
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Fort Worth, Texas, this __ day of August, 2025.
________________________________________
Dennis Faulkner Hub Manager, Fort Worth Distribution Hub (HUB-01) Stonefield Logistics Group Inc. 1015 Railhead Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76106

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

STONEFIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC.,

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts