FedEx Lawsuits: Wage Settlements, Discrimination, and Tariff Claims

FedEx is a party to a wide range of active lawsuits in 2025 and 2026. The company is defending driver overtime and joint-employer claims brought by roughly 15,000 delivery drivers, resolving warehouse security-screening wage cases in Connecticut and Pennsylvania worth about $25 million combined, facing a Tennessee contractor’s suit over a forced buyout, answering EEOC discrimination complaints in New York and Louisiana, and, on the plaintiff’s side, suing the federal government for a refund of emergency tariffs. Here is where each of the major FedEx lawsuits stands.

Driver Overtime and Joint-Employer Cases

The largest cluster involves about 15,000 delivery drivers who say FedEx owes them unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The drivers don’t work for FedEx directly. They’re employed by Independent Service Providers, or ISPs, that contract with FedEx Ground to run delivery routes. The drivers argue FedEx exercises enough control over their work to qualify as a joint employer, which would make it liable when they work more than 40 hours a week.

In August 2024, roughly 15,000 drivers filed five lawsuits in federal courts in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, represented by Lichten & Liss-Riordan. The lead cases include Timothy Atwood, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (No. 2:24-cv-01127) in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and Sean Doyle v. FedEx Ground (No. 1:24-cv-12030) and Calvin Alleyne v. Federal Express Corp. (No. 1:24-cv-12031) in the District of Massachusetts.¹ The suits followed a failed attempt to proceed as a collective action, with drivers pivoting to individual claims filed together.²

FedEx has won important early rulings. On January 26, 2026, a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed the consolidated Doyle and Alleyne cases. The court found that the 183 drivers in those consolidated suits had not adequately shown FedEx had the power to hire or fire them, set their pay rates, or maintain their employment records, the key indicators of joint-employer status under the First Circuit’s standard. The court also ruled the plaintiffs hadn’t sufficiently alleged that they worked unpaid overtime or that FedEx knew about it.³ On April 3, 2026, Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper denied both sets of plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints, though without prejudice.⁴

The Pennsylvania side hit a different obstacle. In May 2026, the federal court in Pittsburgh severed the claims of 14,296 drivers, ruling they had improperly tried to pursue a nationwide mass action after abandoning class and collective claims. Each driver was ordered to file an individual lawsuit in the appropriate forum within 60 days.⁵

Security-Screening and Off-the-Clock Wage Settlements

Separate lawsuits target unpaid time that warehouse and package-handling employees spent going through mandatory security screenings or walking to and from time clocks before and after their shifts. Three have produced settlements, and a fourth is newly filed.

Alfonso v. FedEx Ground — $9.5 Million (Connecticut)

Filed in December 2021, Alfonso v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc. (No. 3:21-cv-01644) alleged that hourly workers at eight Connecticut facilities passed through security checks off the clock. The class covers non-exempt employees who clocked in and out at those facilities between August 1, 2018, and the date of preliminary approval, roughly 20,000 workers.⁶ A federal judge granted preliminary approval of a $9.5 million settlement on April 3, 2026.⁷ After attorneys’ fees of roughly $3.17 million, costs, administration expenses, and $12,500 service awards to each of the four named plaintiffs, about $6.05 million is to be distributed to class members on a pro-rata basis without a claim form.⁸

Haider v. FedEx Ground — $15.5 Million (Pennsylvania)

Haider, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (Case No. C48-CV-2020-3312) was filed in Northampton County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiffs Moen Haider and Steven Kaplan alleged that hourly employees at Pennsylvania package-handling facilities weren’t paid for time walking between warehouse entrances and time clocks or undergoing security screenings, including overtime when those minutes pushed weekly hours above 40. The class covers all hourly or non-exempt employees at FedEx’s Pennsylvania facilities between June 17, 2017, and October 31, 2025. A $15.5 million settlement has been reached, with a final approval hearing set for July 23, 2026.⁹

Rangel v. FedEx Ground — $1.2 Million (California)

In Rangel v. FedEx Ground, FedEx agreed to pay $1.2 million to resolve claims that nonexempt package handlers in California were denied required meal and rest breaks during double shifts and were not paid for time spent during security checks. The settlement covers current and former package handlers employed between September 24, 2009, and the date of preliminary approval. Unclaimed funds are redistributed among valid claimants rather than reverting to FedEx.¹⁰

Medina v. Federal Express — Pending (Illinois)

On July 10, 2025, package handler Angel Lucio Medina filed a proposed class action against Federal Express Corporation in the Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:25-cv-07828). Medina alleges FedEx failed to pay overtime and other earned wages for time spent on company premises at the start and end of the workday, in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.¹¹ The complaint also includes an alternative quantum meruit claim. As of mid-2026 the docket shows no activity beyond the initial filing.¹²

Contractor Disputes and Misclassification Claims

FedEx’s contractor model has generated litigation for more than two decades. Its delivery network relies on ISPs that hire their own drivers, buy or lease their own trucks, and technically run their own businesses. Critics argue the arrangement lets FedEx exercise employer-level control over drivers while avoiding the costs of treating them as employees. The Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO, has estimated the model saves the company up to 40% on labor costs.¹³ After earlier misclassification losses, FedEx restructured its ground delivery model to contract only with entities operating multiple routes, and the January 2026 Massachusetts dismissal suggests that structure may insulate FedEx from joint-employer claims in some jurisdictions.³

On October 2, 2025, FedEx was hit with a new proposed class action alleging it misclassifies delivery drivers as independent service providers while exercising control over their work.¹⁴

LCQ Logistics v. FedEx (Tennessee)

Not all contractor disputes are about drivers. In early 2025, LCQ Logistics, an ISP founded by Acie Perry, sued FedEx in the Circuit Court for Washington County, Tennessee, alleging the company forced it out of business. According to the complaint, on February 10, 2025, FedEx representatives William Brown and Al Malburg gave Perry an ultimatum: sign an agreement to terminate his contractor agreement by February 28, 2025, or face immediate termination. Perry says he was initially denied even the chance to call his spouse before signing.¹⁵

The complaint also alleges FedEx breached the contract by supervising delivery methods (which the ISP agreement supposedly leaves to the contractor), unilaterally stripping routes, and imposing liquidated damages tied to service failures during Hurricane Helene in September 2024 and a January 2025 snowstorm. LCQ says FedEx pressured it to service dangerous, impassable routes during the hurricane and then accused the company of breach when it couldn’t. On March 10, 2025, the court granted LCQ’s request for discovery and deferred ruling on both the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and FedEx’s motion to compel arbitration until discovery is complete.¹⁵

Joseph Sponcia, a founding partner of former FedEx contractor Redan Logistics, has publicly said that “large national contractors” have had routes stripped across multiple states after advocating for their workers, and that contractor margins dropped to “low single digits” following the spring 2024 merger of FedEx Ground and FedEx Express.¹⁵

EEOC and Employment Discrimination Cases

Disability Discrimination — $280,000 Settlement (New York)

In 2025, the EEOC filed EEOC v. Federal Express Corporation d/b/a FedEx Express (No. 1:25-cv-00454) in the Southern District of New York, alleging FedEx violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to let several dispatchers continue working from home. According to the EEOC, the dispatchers had performed their duties remotely for nearly three years when FedEx demanded they return to its downtown Manhattan office in February 2023, and at least one employee was forced into retirement as a result. FedEx settled on April 17, 2026 for $280,000. The consent decree also requires the company to update accommodation policies, train employees who review accommodation requests, offer a path to reinstatement for a former dispatcher, and report compliance measures to the EEOC.¹⁶

Sexual Harassment (Louisiana)

On September 29, 2025, the EEOC filed EEOC v. Federal Express Corporation (No. 2:25-cv-01997) in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The lawsuit alleges a female administrator at FedEx’s St. Rose, Louisiana location endured years of sexual harassment by her direct supervisor. According to the complaint, after the employee reported the behavior it stopped temporarily, then resumed and escalated to forced sexual touching in September 2022, which was reported to law enforcement. The EEOC alleges FedEx failed to take effective action, refused to permanently separate the supervisor from the victim, and then fired the administrator when she refused to return to work alongside the alleged harasser.¹⁷

Age Discrimination — Fifth Circuit Ruling

In Michael Allen v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (No. 24-50344), the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for FedEx on February 24, 2025. Allen, a former manager born in 1964, claimed he was fired because of his age, citing coworkers’ comments that he was “old” and couldn’t “retain information.” FedEx argued Allen was terminated for violating its weapons policy after he failed to properly report a coworker bringing a gun into a facility. The court found Allen didn’t show that the employees who made the age-related comments had any influence over the person who made the firing decision, and held that FedEx’s weapons-policy explanation was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination.¹⁸

FedEx’s Tariff Refund Suit Against the U.S.

FedEx is also a plaintiff in one of its biggest cases. On February 23, 2026, Federal Express Corp. and its subsidiary FedEx Logistics sued in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, seeking a full refund of tariffs paid under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.¹⁹ The suit names U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Commissioner Rodney Scott, and the United States as defendants.²⁰

The filing came three days after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump had exceeded his authority by unilaterally imposing tariffs under IEEPA without congressional authorization. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the president cannot “unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope” without “clear congressional authorization.”²¹ FedEx hasn’t disclosed the exact dollar amount it’s seeking. In September 2025 the company projected a $1 billion hit to annual earnings from U.S. trade policies, roughly 16% of the prior fiscal year’s total earnings.²⁰

FedEx is one of at least 19 companies that have challenged the IEEPA tariffs in court, including Costco, Goodyear, J. Crew, Prada, and Staples. The first such challenge was filed by machinery manufacturer Yamazaki Mazak in November 2025.²¹ The Penn Wharton Budget Model has estimated roughly $175 billion in total U.S. tariff collections are potentially eligible for refunds, though as of mid-2026 the recovery process still has to be worked out by a lower court and no formal refund mechanism has been established.¹⁹

1
Top Class Actions. 15K FedEx Drivers File Class Action Over OT Wages
2
Law360. FedEx Sued by 15K Drivers After OT Collectives End
3
Independent Contractor Compliance. Independent Contractors and Joint Employment Doctrine – January 2026 IC Legal News Update
4
PACER Monitor. Doyle v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. et al.
5
Courthouse News Service. 14,296 FedEx Drivers Overtime Claims Severed
6
Law360. Alfonso v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc. – Case Summary
7
Law360. $9.5M FedEx Security Screening Pay Deal Gets Initial OK
8
ALM. Alfonso v. FedEx Ground Settlement Filing
9
Haider FedEx PA. Haider v. FedEx Ground Class Notice
10
Stoll Berne. FedEx Ground Settles Package Handler Class Action
11
Bloomberg Law. FedEx Hit With Illinois Package Handlers Wages Class Action
12
PACER Monitor. Medina v. Federal Express Corporation
13
Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO. Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors
14
Law.com. FedEx Hit With Employment Action for Misidentifying Independent Service Providers, Suit Says
15
Milberg. FedEx Dispute
16
EEOC. FedEx to Pay $280,000 in EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
17
EEOC. EEOC v. Federal Express Corporation – Press Release
18
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Allen v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
19
Reuters. FedEx Sues US for Refund of Trump’s Emergency Tariffs
20
CNBC. FedEx Trump Trade Tariffs Refunds Supreme Court Lawsuit
21
Memphis Commercial Appeal. Trump Tariff Lawsuits Refunds FedEx Memphis