Fedex Ground to Build in Manatee County
April 24
New Express Terminal in Tallahassee
April 17
Another Right-wing Critique of FedEx Ground
April 14
FedEx Litigation: Summary Judgement Motions Due 4/11
March 20
FedEx Ground Breaking Ground in NH
February 15
FedEx Freight to Expand in Syracuse Area
February 15
ARAW and LCCR Commentary
December 21
Choose a Category or a State or a Search Term for a more specific search
The full case name is Richard Tidd, Kristi Gruhn and all other similarly situated v. Adecco USA Inc., Kelly Services Inc. and FedEx Ground Package System Inc. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in June 2007. The claims allege that drivers jointly employed by Adecco and FedEx Ground or Kelly and FedEx Ground were routinely not paid full wages and drivers of vehicles under 10,000 lbs were not paid overtime since August 2005. The three companies jointly filed motions in September 2007 to have the complaint dismissed in its entirety; the judge has yet to rule as of September 26, 2007.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Eastern Louisiana in April 2007 and since consolidated into the FedEx Ground multi-district litigation now before U.S. District Court in Northern Indiana. The two named plaintiffs were drivers for FedEx Ground of ‘non-commercial vehicles’ or vehicles of gross weight less than 10,000 lbs. Since 2005, drivers of such vehicles have been covered by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and eligible for overtime for work beyond the 40 hour work week. The claims allege that the drivers are misclassified as ‘contractors’ and controlled like employees and thus are owed overtime wages under the FLSA.
The case before the U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit was filed in 2005. The case appeals the National Labor Relations Board decision in “Grass and FedEx Freight.”
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan in 2004. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Oregon in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Western Tennessee in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Minnesota in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Indiana in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in 2004. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for New Hampshire in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Kansas in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for South Carolina in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida (Tampa) in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for South Dakota in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Western Kentucky in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York (Brooklyn) in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Rhode Island in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Northern California in 2005. This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.
This is the consolidated case of the group of lawsuits alleging wrongful classification at FedEx Ground and Home Delivery. The various lawsuits were consolidated into this multi-district litigation (MDL) case at the U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana in August 2005. The Judge certified the first claims including the Federal ERISA claims as a class action in October 2007; the Judge further certified claims for another 19 states but denied certification in 9 states in a March 2008 order.
This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Northern California in 2003. The class of plaintiffs allege that the FedEx Express Western Region discriminates against hourly employees and certain managers due to race and ethnicity in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Two separate classes - for hourly employees and for certain managers - were certified by the court in September 2005. In April 2007, the workers’ lawyers and FedEx Express announced a settlement to the charges in this lawsuit.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for Central California in December 2005. The case alleges FedEx Express policies in force since 1994 discriminate against older couriers in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
This case originated in Superior Court for New Jersey Burlington County in 2006. FedEx was granted a removal order to U.S. District Court for New Jersey but was not granted a motion to move it into the multi-district litigation proceedings. FedEx moved to compel arbitration and the plaintiffs opposed by claiming the arbitration clause of the FedEx Ground “Operating Agreement” was unconscionable. In October 2007, the Judge ruled that the arbitration clause was both procedurally and substantially unconscionable.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated a complaint of a FedEx Express employee filed in 2005. The employee complaint centered on the use of a “Basic Skills Test” at FedEx Express. The EEOC issued FedEx subpoenas for information on the types of FedEx computerized human resource files. FedEx resisted the subpoena and ultimately did not answer the request for information. The EEOC took FedEx to federal court In June 2006 to enforce the administrative subpoena.
This case was filed in King County (WA) Superior Court in 2003 and removed to U.S. District Court for Western Washington in 2004. The plaintiffs alleged that FedEx Ground, a staffing agency and a multi-route contractor were joint employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Washington Minimum Wage Act. In March 2005, the judge issued a summary judgment that FedEx Ground was the joint employer of the plaintiffs. The case was settled in Sept 2005. FedEx immedeiately appealed the summary judgment to the Ninth Circuit; the appeal is pending (USCA 05-36072).