The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Amazon Logistics Inc. v. Virginia Employment Commission on whether the commission could rely on the record developed for a single claimant, Mr. Diggs, to issue a class‑wide finding that Amazon’s “flex” delivery drivers are employees rather than independent contractors.

The issue matters because a class‑wide ruling would affect thousands of gig‑economy drivers and could expose Amazon to tax liabilities and other consequences beyond the single benefits claim that prompted the administrative proceeding.

Michelle Callan, counsel for Amazon Logistics, told the court that the administrative record “was developed as to a single, delivery partner” and said that a determination based on the terms and conditions that applied only to Mr. Diggs could not properly be imputed to an entire class of workers. Callan argued that the commission did not provide notice of the class of workers at stake and that Amazon repeatedly urged the commission to rule in favor of all flex drivers in the proceeding below, which, she said, complicates whether Amazon may now attack a class‑wide imputation on appeal.

Erica Maley, representing the Virginia Employment Commission, told the justices the commission “acted well within the scope of its authority in holding that Amazon owes taxes because it misclassified its flex drivers.” Maley said the commission opened tax‑liability proceedings after information in an individual benefits claim suggested misclassification and that the commission may look beyond an individual claim when evidence suggests a broader problem.

Justices pressed both sides on two recurring points: (1) whether Amazon preserved objection to class‑wide relief before the commission and the Court of Appeals and (2) whether the evidentiary record developed for Mr. Diggs is legally sufficient to support a class‑wide ruling covering other drivers and later versions of the contract or statute. Justice Kelsey framed the core practical concern: whether the evidentiary record for a single driver could support an imputation that would reach “thousands upon thousands of gig company drivers across many different platforms.” Justice Kelsey also said he found it “very difficult to believe that this record supports a class wide finding.”

Callan emphasized that the record and the terms and conditions the commission relied on applied to Mr. Diggs at a particular time and under a particular statutory framework, and that the commission itself at one point described the proceeding as applying to Mr. Diggs alone (citing the joint appendix). She urged the court to limit any ruling to the operative statute and factual record before the commission.

Maley responded that the dispositive legal question is control: the commission found the Amazon agreement gave the company a sufficient right to control drivers’ work, pointing to features such as directions during assigned blocks of time and limits on working for others while on a block as evidence supporting the finding of employment. She also noted that if Amazon believes facts or law have changed materially, Amazon may request a new proceeding under the applicable administrative provisions.

In rebuttal, Callan told the court that, post‑decision, the commission had sought to collect taxes from Amazon through 2024 and that the commission recently filed a notice to appear in lieu of a warrant for failure to pay those taxes; she said that position suggested the commission was treating its decision as sweeping beyond the single‑claim record, and offered to supplement the record on that point if the court wished.

No decision was announced at argument. The court's questions focused on preservation, the scope of the commission’s notice under the administrative provision invoked in the proceeding, and whether factual findings about a single claimant can be generalized to a class. The justices signaled particular concern about whether the record here, developed for one worker, can supply the evidentiary basis for a broad, class‑wide edict affecting gig‑economy arrangements going forward.