Litigation

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.

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.

Tumulty vs FedEx Ground Contractor Dispute | Federal Litigation | Wage Hour | Washington | |

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).

Company Policy Docs

FedEx, Chamber of Commerce Publications on Contractors Contractor Dispute | Lobbying | National | Operations | |

In May 2006, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a publication on “alternative employment arrangements” like on-call workers, temporary workers and - of most interest to FedEx - independent contractors. FedEx CEO Fred Smith “echoed” the Chamber report just days after its release in a speech before Chamber members in Washington. This coordination between FedEx and the Chamber of Commerce marks another low-point in the attempts to misinform the public and politicians on “indepdenent contractors.”

Federal Regulation Docs

Lucey et al Vs FedEx Ground Arbitration Clause | Federal Litigation | New Jersey | |

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.

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 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.