Alexander, 765 F.3d at 995 (finding that the skill factor favored plaintiffs’ classification as employees under California law because “FedEx drivers ‘need no experience to get the job in the first place and [the] only required skill is the ability to drive’”) (quoting Estrada, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d at 337); Ruiz, 754 F.3d at 1104 (finding that “the drivers’ work did not require substantial skill”). As the Ninth Circuit explained in Ruiz, “in hiring drivers, [defendant] did not require special driving licenses or even any work experience; rather a driver simply had to have a driver’s license, sign a work agreement, and pass a physical examination and drug test.” Id. California courts and courts in this district have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Villalpando, 2015 WL 5179486, at *49 (<HOLDING>); JKH Enterprises, Inc., 142 Cal.App.4th at
holding that there is no individual liability under title vii holding that when the district court imposed drug testing in connection with a special condition of substance abuse program participation  it was  not required to specify the number of drug tests a defendant must undergo as a part of the treatment program holding that an individual needs no special skills to be hired as a driver for defendant but rather all that is required is that an individual be at least 21 years old pass a physical examination and drug test undergo a criminal background check and have a clean driving record holding that an individual who is required to register as a sex offender is not in custody holding that because the proper defendant in a title vi case is an entity rather than an individual plaintiff could not be sued in his individual capacity under title vi