FedEx is currently defending a wave of consumer class action lawsuits alleging it collected billions of dollars in unlawful tariff charges struck down by the Supreme Court in February 2026, and those cases sit on top of a long record of class action settlements over driver misclassification, unpaid security-screening time, race discrimination, and billing overcharges that together exceed half a billion dollars. If you shipped an international package through FedEx in the past year, worked in one of its warehouses, drove for FedEx Ground, or were billed a residential surcharge on a commercial delivery, one of these cases may involve you.
The 2026 Tariff Class Actions
On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give the president authority to impose tariffs. The decision invalidated tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China, along with a broader set of “reciprocal” tariffs on all trading partners.1Supreme Court of the United States. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026)
Class actions against FedEx began landing the same day. Attorney Hali Anastopoulo filed in the District of South Carolina and the Western District of Tennessee, alleging FedEx had collected tariff-related charges on imported goods that were unlawful under the Court’s ruling.2Arnold & Porter. The Next Wave of Tariff Litigation On February 27, Miami resident Matthew Reiser filed a separate suit in the Southern District of Florida, Reiser v. Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Logistics, Inc., proposing a nationwide class of everyone who paid FedEx for IEEPA tariff charges or associated brokerage and clearance fees between February 4, 2025, and February 24, 2026.3ClassAction.org. FedEx Charged Consumers Illegal Tariff Fees, Class Action Lawsuit Contends
Plaintiffs allege FedEx charged duties on goods that carried a “free” rate under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and layered on brokerage, clearance, and administrative fees to process those entries. The Anastopoulo complaint also alleges FedEx broke its own shipping contracts, which permit the company to collect only “lawful duties, taxes, or governmental charges.”4Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo, LLC. Anastopoulo v. FedEx Corporation, Complaint
By June 1, 2026, a federal judge in the Western District of Tennessee consolidated 13 separate class actions into In re FedEx Tariff Litigation (Case No. 2:26-02181).5Trade Law Daily. Federal District Court Grants Consolidation of 13 IEEPA Refund Class Action Suits No class has been certified and no settlement has been reached.
FedEx has filed its own suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade seeking a full refund of the IEEPA duties it paid on behalf of customers, and it has said it will pass any refunds through to shippers. A notice on the company’s website acknowledged that “no refund process” had been established by regulators or the courts.6CNBC. FedEx Files Lawsuit Over Trump Trade Tariffs Refunds After Supreme Court Ruling Plaintiffs’ lawyers note that promise is not legally binding, which is why the class actions were filed.7Morgan & Morgan. Morgan and Morgan’s FedEx Tariffs Class Action
Security-Screening Wage Settlements
Warehouse workers in three states have brought class actions alleging FedEx required them to pass through mandatory security screenings before and after their shifts without pay.
In Connecticut, roughly 20,000 workers at eight FedEx Ground facilities sued in Alfonso v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc. On April 3, 2026, Judge Sarala Nagala granted preliminary approval of a $9.5 million settlement covering an estimated 45,000 class members. Eligible workers do not need to file a claim form; payments will be issued automatically. Plaintiffs’ attorneys requested $3.16 million in fees.8Law360. Alfonso v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc9ALM. Alfonso v. FedEx Ground Package System, Settlement Documents
In New Jersey, William Taggart filed a similar suit on behalf of approximately 97,795 hourly workers at distribution hubs, fulfillment centers, and warehouses. FedEx signed an $8.5 million settlement on February 18, 2026, while denying any wrongdoing.10NJ.com. FedEx Settles NJ Warehouse Workers Wage Lawsuit for $8.5M
A California case brought by nonexempt package handlers combined security-check claims with allegations that workers were denied required meal and rest breaks. Judge David O. Carter granted preliminary approval of a $1.2 million settlement covering workers employed from September 24, 2009 through the preliminary approval date.11Stoll Berne. FedEx Ground Settles Package Handler Class Action
Driver Misclassification: The $468 Million in Settlements
For years, FedEx Ground treated its pickup-and-delivery drivers as independent contractors, avoiding the cost of benefits, overtime, and payroll taxes. Drivers across the country challenged that arrangement in court.
The turning point came in 2014, when the Ninth Circuit ruled in Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. that California and Oregon drivers were employees as a matter of law. Applying the “right to control” test, the court found FedEx dictated uniforms down to the socks, required company-logoed “FedEx white” vehicles, set daily schedules of 9.5 to 11 hours, and negotiated delivery windows directly with customers. The panel rejected the contractor labels in FedEx’s agreements, instructing courts to look at the “underlying reality rather than the form or label.”12Quinn Emanuel. FedEx Drivers — Employees or Independent Contractors13Pullman & Comley. Employee or Independent Contractor — A Change in the Ground Rules at FedEx Ground
In 2015, FedEx paid $228 million to resolve the California and Oregon claims. In June 2016, it paid another $240 million to settle cases covering drivers in 20 additional states, closing nearly twelve years of litigation.14Staffing Industry Analysts. FedEx Settles IC Misclassification Case for $240 Million The two deals together exceeded $468 million.
Contractor and Joint-Employer Cases Under the ISP Model
After those settlements, FedEx moved delivery operations to an Independent Service Provider structure, in which contractors run multi-route businesses and hire drivers themselves. That model has produced its own disputes.
In LCQ Logistics v. FedEx Corporation, filed in Tennessee state court, a contractor alleged FedEx demanded unsubstantiated “liquidated damages” after weather events including Hurricane Helene, coerced the contractor into signing a termination agreement, seized delivery territories, and retaliated against contractors who raised safety concerns. On March 10, 2025, the court granted discovery and deferred FedEx’s motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiff has demanded a jury trial.15Milberg. LCQ Logistics v. FedEx Corporation
In a separate line of cases, 183 drivers in Doyle v. Federal Express Corp. and Aleyne v. Federal Express Corp., consolidated in the District of Massachusetts, argued FedEx and their ISPs were joint employers who owed them overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. A federal judge dismissed the claims in January 2026, finding the drivers had not shown FedEx had the power to hire, fire, or set their pay. An appeal is expected.16Independent Contractor Compliance. Independent Contractors and Joint Employment Doctrine — January 2026 Legal News Update
Discrimination Cases
In Satchell v. FedEx Express, a class of roughly 20,000 African American and Latino hourly employees and operations managers in the company’s western region alleged systemic race discrimination in promotions, discipline, and pay going back to October 1999. In August 2007, a court approved a $54.9 million settlement that also required FedEx to make performance evaluations less discretionary and to eliminate a “Basic Skills Test” that had been used as a promotion prerequisite.17Lieff Cabraser. Satchell v. FedEx Express Employment Discrimination Lawsuit
More recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued FedEx Express in the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dispatchers with disabilities had worked from home from April 2020 through February 2023, when FedEx ordered them back to its downtown Manhattan office without conducting the interactive process required to consider alternative accommodations. At least one dispatcher was forced into retirement. Under a consent decree, FedEx agreed to pay $280,000, offer a path to reinstatement for an affected former dispatcher, update its accommodation policies, and provide mandatory training for staff who review accommodation requests.18U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. FedEx To Pay $280,000 in EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
Residential Surcharge Overbilling
In Gokare v. Federal Express Corp. (W.D. Tenn. 2011), plaintiffs alleged FedEx routinely applied a $3.50 “residential surcharge” to packages delivered to commercial addresses. Discovery turned up internal FedEx emails describing the situation as “a huge class action waiting to happen.” FedEx paid $21 million to settle and agreed to change how it determines whether a delivery qualifies for the residential surcharge.19Watson Burns. Federal Express Overcharge Class Action
FedEx’s Cumulative Legal Exposure
Good Jobs First’s Violation Tracker database records roughly $705 million in penalties against FedEx since 2000 across 355 entries. Employment-related offenses account for about $631 million of that total. Wage and hour violations alone represent more than $530 million across 25 cases, and employment discrimination adds about $83 million across 19 cases.20Good Jobs First. Violation Tracker — FedEx Those numbers predate the 2026 tariff class actions, the Connecticut and New Jersey security-screening settlements, and other pending matters, so FedEx’s cumulative exposure continues to climb.