Search Resources

Choose a Category or a State or a Search Term for a more specific search

Division

Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Wage Hour | State Litigation | Washington | |

This case was filed in King County (Washington) Superior Court in 2004.  The drivers alleged violations of the Washington Minimum Wage Act and sought class action certification.  FedEx Ground had the case moved to the multi-district litigation but the U.S. District Court for Norther Indiana remanded the case back to Washington court in 2006.  Superior Court Judge Canova certified the claim as a class action in January 2008.  Trial is schedule for late 2008.

Tidd vs Adecco et al Division | Ground | Class Action | Federal Litigation | National | Wage Hour

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.

Givens vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Federal Litigation | National | Wage Hour | |

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.

Vargas vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Wage Hour | State Litigation | Illinois | Massachusetts | Michigan | Minnesota | Montana | New Jersey | |

This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts but since consolidated into the FedEx Ground multi-district litigation now before the U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana.  Since August 2005, drivers of non-commercial vehicles - vehicles of gross vehicle weight less than 10,000 lbs - have been eligible for overtime under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  Prior to August 2005, drivers of non-commercial vehicles were exempted from the FLSA and state wage laws and not eligible for state overtime wages.  The claims allege that drivers are misclassified as ‘contractors’ but controlled like employees and thus are owed overtime wages under the state laws. 

FedEx Ground vs California Employment Development Dept. Division | Ground | Contractor Dispute | State Litigation | California | |

This case stems from the California Employment Development Dept. audit of FedEx Ground in 2004 where the EDD determined that FedEx Ground drivers were employees.  The EDD assessed FedEx Ground owed more than $7.88 million in back payments to California.  As of November 2006, California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board denied FedEx Ground’s petition for reassessment; the EDD audit determination that single route drivers are employees stands and FedEx Ground has 30 days to appeal.

FedEx Freight vs National Labor Relations Board Division | Freight | Anti-union | Federal Litigation | Teamsters | Unionization | Illinois | |

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.”

Lester vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | Michigan | |

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.

Slayman vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | |

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.

Willis vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | Pennsylvania | |

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.

Tofaute vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | New Jersey | |

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.

Sheehan vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Massachusetts | |

This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in 2005.  This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.

Arthur Smith vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | Tennessee | |

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.

Lee vs FedEx Corp Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | Minnesota | |

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.

Riewe vs FedEx Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | Indiana | |

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.

Louzau vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | New York | |

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.

Larson vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | |

This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin in 2005.  This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.

Gregory vs FedEx Corp Division | Ground | |

This case was filed in U.S. District Court for Virginia in 2003.  This case is a member case of the FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation case.

Gennel vs FedEx Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | New Hampshire | |

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.

Fleming vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | Kansas | |

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.

Cooke vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | South Carolina | |

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.

Carlson vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | Florida | |

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.

Bunger vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | South Dakota | |

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.

Bertram vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | Kentucky | |

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.

Curtis Johnson vs FedEx Home Delivery Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | New York | |

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.

Griffin vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | Illinois | |

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.

Tierney vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | Rhode Island | |

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.

Humphreys v FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | Texas | |

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.

Alexander vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | California | |

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.

Estrada vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | State Litigation | California | |

This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 1999 under the case name Estrada vs Roadway Package System.  This California class action lawsuit is the landmark victory for FedEx Ground and Home Drivers.  The judge ordered in 2004 that single vehicle contractors at FedEx Ground/Home were employees and FedEx Ground/Home was liable for many of the drivers expenses.  FedEx appealed this decision.  In August 2007, the CA Appeals Court affirmed the decision that drivers are employees.

FedEx Ground/Home Multi-District Litigation Division | Ground | Class Action | Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | National | |

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.

Cummings et al vs FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Arbitration Clause | Contractor Dispute | Colorado | |

This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for Colorado in 2003; the case settled in December 2005.  The plaintiffs are former FedEx Ground drivers who alleged that certain verbal commitments by FedEx recruiters violated laws against fraud, breach of implied contract and deceptive trade practices.

Satchell et al vs FedEx Express Division | Express | Class Action | Federal Litigation | National | Race Discrimination | |

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.

Clausnitzer vs FedEx Express Division | Express | Age Discrimination | Federal Litigation | National | |

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.

FedEx Ground vs USA Division | Ground | Contractor Dispute | National | |

This is a continuation of the 1991 Roadway Package Systems Inc. v USA case before the United States Court of Federal Claims.  The IRS audited RPS for 1985 and 1986 and found the drivers to be employees and not “owner operators.” RPS filed a complaint against the Dept of Treasury to get a refund of the taxes, penalties and interest stemming from that audit.  RPS and the IRS agreed to settle in 1995 and the case was dismissed.  In December 2007, FedEx Corp announced the IRS audited FedEx Ground for 2002 and found the drivers to be employees and not “independent contractors.” Negotiations between FedEx and the IRS are ongoing.

Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board: Washington Appeal Division | Ground | Contractor Dispute | State Litigation | Pennsylvania

This appeal involves a claim for unemployment benefits by Michael Washington, a former FedEx Ground driver.  Washington appealed the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Service Center ruling that he was a contractor and not eligible for benefits. The Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Review Board reversed the previous ruling and found Washington to be a statutory employee.

Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board: Craig Appeal Division | Ground | Contractor Dispute | State Litigation | Pennsylvania

This appeal involves a claim for unemployment benefits by Annette Craig, a former FedEx Ground driver.  Craig appealed the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Service Center ruling that she was a contractor and not eligible for benefits.  The Unemployment Compensation Review Board reversed the previous ruling and found Craig to be a statutory employee.

New York Workers' Comp Board July 2006 Panel Decision Division | Ground | Contractor Dispute | State Litigation | New York

The New York Workers’ Compensation Board was asked by FedEx Ground to review an earlier Judge’s decision that a FedEx Home Delivery driver was found to be an employee.  The original injury occurred in January 2004.  The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge ruled in September 2005 that the claimant was an employee.  The Board Panel decision was unanimous and issed in July 2006.  FedEx Ground did not appeal the Panel’s decision to the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Third Division.

Connecticut Employment Security Division: Ignasiak Case Division | Ground | State Litigation | Connecticut | |

Former Windsor, CT FedEx Home Delivery multiple-vehicle contractor Keith Ignasiak applied for and was awarded state unemployment insurance benefits.  The Connecticut Department of Labor Employment Security Division determined that the company failed the state’s ABC Test and ruled Ignasiak was an employee.

Sonic Air vs California Employment Development Dept. Division | Ground | Contractor Dispute | State Litigation | UPS | California

This case of UPS subsidiary Sonic Air vs California EDD is demonstrative of the California legal process for employers found to wrongly classify its employees as “independent contractors.” The Sonic Air tax case is a predecessor to the FedEx Ground vs. California EDD case.  The Sonic Air case started earlier than the FedEx Ground case and shows the possible outcome of EDD succeeding in defending its audits that found FedEx Ground single-vehicle drivers to be employees.

Teamsters Local 671 and FedEx Home Division | Ground | NLRB | Teamsters | Unionization | Connecticut | |

Teamsters Local Union 671 filed a petition for an election at the FedEx Home Delivery Terminal in Windsor, CT in February 2007.  NLRB Region 34 Director Hoffman issued a decision that the single vehicle contractors were employees and eligible to vote in an election.  The vote was held on May 11 and ballots were counted on June 1.  The drivers voted 12 - 9 to join Local 671.  NLRB certification is pending.

Teamsters Local 25 and FedEx Home Division | Ground | NLRB | Massachusetts | |

This NLRB case involved Teamsters Local Union 25 and a FedEx Home Delivery terminal in Wilmington, MA in 2006.  Teamsters Local Union 25 filed for an election with the National Labor Relations Board in Summer 2006.  The NLRB found that drivers are employees and are eligible to vote while multiple route contractors are statutory supervisors and not eligible to vote.  Wilmington drivers voted for Local 25 in Oct. 2006.  The NLRB certified the election in June 2007. The NLRB charged the company with failing to bargain under the NLRA in July 2007 and ordered the company to bargain.  On Oct. 1, the company filed a petition for review of the NLRB ruling that the drivers are employees in the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit.

Massachusetts Dept of Workforce Development: Williams Appeal Division | Ground | Contractor Dispute | Massachusetts | |

This appeal stems from an unemployment insurance claim filed by Robert Williams, a former FedEx Home Delivery driver.  Williams, who was involved in the Teamsters organizing driver at the Northboro terminal, was ruled to be an “employee” of FedEx.  As of Sept. 1, there is no information on any FedEx request for further appeal.

FedEx Home Delivery Applies for HOS Exemption Division | Ground | National | Operations | Safety Health | Off The Clock | |

UPDATED 8/24/06: FedEx withdrew its HOS exemption application as of 8/16/06.  DoT posted FedEx’s letter on 8/23/06.  Drivers should continue to submit comments on HOS violations.  We will keep updating our Resource page.  END UPDATE FedEx Home Delivery submitted an application for an exemption for hours of service requirements for its drivers on July 10.  The Federal Register announced a comment period will run from July 30 until August 30, 2006.  The exemption application wants the Dept of Transportation to allow drivers who drive their delivery vehicles from their last delivery point to their home AND drivers who drive their delivery vehicles to their terminal to be declared as driving “off hours” and thus exempt from the hours of service regs.  The Teamsters oppose this application for exemption due to the possible pressure on drivers to work off the clock and in the interests of both the drivers personal safety and public safety.

FedEx Ground vs Oregon Employment Department Division | Ground | Contractor Dispute | State Litigation | Oregon | |

This case was filed with the Oregon Court of Appeals in May 2006.  The Oregon Employment Department determined in 2005 that a multi-vehicle contractor was an employee of FedEx Home Delivery and eligible for unemployment insurance coverage.  FedEx lost an administrative appeal before appealing the ruling to the Oregon Court of Appeals.  FedEx withdrew its appeal with the Court of Appeals on December 19, 2006.  The administrative ruling that multiple-vehicle contractor McHenry (and his drivers) were found to be employees and eligible for Oregon unemployment benefits stands. 

EEOC vs FedEx Corporation Division | Express | Federal Litigation | National | Race Discrimination | |

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.

Foster vs FedEx Express Division | Express | Class Action | Wage Hour | State Litigation | Off The Clock | California | |

This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2002.  The plaintiffs alleged the FedEx Express routinely underpaid its couriers, handlers and service agents in California in violation of the states wage and hour law.  The case was certified as a class action in 2004 and the trial date was set for Spring 2006. In February 2006, FedEx settled the lawsuit for $30 million.  Settlement notice letters were sent in May 2006.

Teamsters Local 804 and FedEx Ground Division | Ground | NLRB | Teamsters | Unionization | New York | |

This case stems from a petition for election filed with the National Labor Relations Board by Teamsters Local 804 in 2001 at a FedEx Ground facility in Maspeth, NY.  The NLRB Region 29 decided in May 2001 that the drivers were employees and not “contractors” as claimed by FedEx Ground.

Teamsters Local 177 and FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Anti-union | NLRB | Teamsters | Unionization | New Jersey | |

This case stems from a petition for election before the National Labor Relations Board filed by Teamsters Local 177 at a FedEx Ground facility in Fairfield, NJ in 2004.  The NLRB Region 22 ruled in Nov 2004 that the drivers were employees and not “contractors” as claimed by FedEx Ground.

FXGHD Drivers Association and FedEx Ground Division | Ground | Anti-union | Contractor Dispute | NLRB | Unionization | New Jersey | |

This case stems from a filing for election before the National Labor Relations Board by the FXGHD Drivers Association in Barrington, NJ in 2005.  The NLRB Region 4 ruled that the drivers were employees and not “contractors” as claimed by FedEx Ground.  The election results are still pending.

Teamsters Local 170 and FedEx Home Division | Ground | Anti-union | NLRB | Teamsters | Unionization | Massachusetts | |

This case involves Teamsters Local Union 170 organizing efforts at the FedEx Home Delivery station in Northboro, MA in 2005.  Teamsters Local 170 filed for an election with the National Labor Relations Board in December 2005.  Teamsters Local 170 asked for a delay in the election after filing a number of unfair labor practices.  NLRB Region 1 issued a complaint in March 2007 against the company for its anti-union activities in the course of the election.  Local 170, five drivers and the company reached a settlement in Oct. 2007.  An election is scheduled for February 2008.