Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Aug. 31, 2011

Loss Contingency Abstract

Contingencies

(8) Contingencies

Wage-and-Hour. We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits containing various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour violations. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that they were forced to work “off the clock,” were not paid overtime or were not provided work breaks or other benefits. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both. We do not believe that a material loss is reasonably possible with respect to any of these matters.

In September 2009, in Taylor v. FedEx Freight, a California state court granted class certification, certifying a class of all current and former drivers employed by FedEx Freight in California who performed linehaul services since June 2003. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that they were forced to work “off the clock” and were not provided with required rest or meal breaks. We entered into a tentative settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in June 2011 for an immaterial amount. The order of preliminary approval of settlement was entered by the court in September 2011.

Independent Contractor — Lawsuits and State Administrative Proceedings. FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits (including 30 that have been certified as class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators should be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs. employee). In sum, the court has now ruled on our summary judgment motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified as class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a matter of the law of the following states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas (the court previously dismissed without prejudice the nationwide class claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 based on the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies), Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases.

In the other eight certified class actions in the multidistrict litigation, the court ruled in favor of FedEx Ground on some of the claims and against FedEx Ground on at least one claim in three of the cases (filed in Kentucky, Nevada and New Hampshire) and then remanded all eight cases back to district court in the following states for resolution of the remaining claims: Arkansas, California, Florida, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire and Oregon (two certified classes). In January 2011, we asked the court to issue final judgments in these eight cases, and the court denied our motion. In July 2011, we filed a petition to the Seventh Circuit asking the appeals court to require these cases to be returned to the multidistrict litigation court for issuance of a final judgment so that all appeals of the December 2010 summary judgment rulings would be heard by the Seventh Circuit, and we have not yet received a ruling on that petition.

In January 2008, one of the contractor-model lawsuits that is not part of the multidistrict litigation, Anfinson v. FedEx Ground, was certified as a class action by a Washington state court. The plaintiffs in Anfinson represent a class of single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in Washington from December 21, 2001 through December 31, 2005 and allege that the class members should be reimbursed as employees for their uniform expenses and should receive overtime pay. In March 2009, a jury trial in the Anfinson case was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of FedEx Ground, finding that all 320 class members were independent contractors, not employees. The plaintiffs appealed the verdict. In December 2010, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings, including a new trial. We filed a motion to reconsider, and this motion was denied. In March 2011, we filed a discretionary appeal with the Washington Supreme Court, and in August 2011, that petition was granted.

In August 2010, another one of the contractor-model lawsuits that is not part of the multidistrict litigation, Rascon v. FedEx Ground, was certified as a class action by a Colorado state court. The plaintiff in Rascon represents a class of single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in Colorado who drove vehicles weighing less than 10,001 pounds at any time from August 27, 2005 through the present. The lawsuit seeks unpaid overtime compensation, and related penalties and attorneys' fees and costs, under Colorado law. Our applications for appeal challenging this class certification decision have been rejected.

Other contractor-model cases that are not or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation are in varying stages of litigation.

With respect to the state administrative proceedings relating to the classification of FedEx Ground's owner-operators as independent contractors, during the second quarter of 2011, the attorneys general in New York and Kentucky each filed lawsuits against FedEx Ground challenging the validity of the contractor model.

While the granting of summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground by the multidistrict litigation court in 20 of the 28 cases that had been certified as class actions remains subject to appeal, we believe that it significantly improves the likelihood that our independent contractor model will be upheld. Adverse determinations in the remaining matters related to FedEx Ground's independent contractors, however, could, among other things, entitle certain of our contractors and their drivers to the reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-and-hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and benefit liability for FedEx Ground, and could result in changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators in certain jurisdictions. We believe that FedEx Ground's owner-operators are properly classified as independent contractors and that FedEx Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the company's independent contractors. While it is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of these lawsuits or such changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators could be material, we cannot yet determine the amount or reasonable range of potential loss. A number of factors contribute to this. The number of plaintiffs in these lawsuits continues to change, with some being dismissed and others being added and, as to new plaintiffs, no discovery has been conducted. In addition, the parties have not yet conducted any discovery into damages, which could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff. Further, the range of potential loss could be impacted considerably by future rulings on the merits of certain claims and FedEx Ground's various defenses, and on evidentiary issues. In any event, we do not believe that a material loss is probable in these matters.

ATA Airlines. In October 2010, a jury returned a verdict in favor of ATA Airlines in its breach of contract lawsuit against FedEx Express and awarded damages of $66 million, and in January 2011, the court awarded ATA pre-judgment interest of $5 million. While we do not agree with the verdict or the amount of damages awarded and have appealed the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, accounting standards required an accrual of a $66 million loss in the second quarter of 2011. We did not accrue the $5 million of interest as a loss because we have additional arguments on appeal that lead us to believe that loss of that amount is not probable.

California Paystub Class Action. A federal court in California ruled in April 2011 that paystubs for certain FedEx Express employees in California did not meet that state's requirements to reflect pay period begin date, total overtime hours worked and the correct overtime wage rate. The ruling came in a class action lawsuit filed by a former courier seeking damages on behalf of herself and all other FedEx Express employees in California that allegedly received noncompliant paystubs. The court certified the class in June 2011. The court has ruled that FedEx Express is liable to the State of California, and there will be a ruling as to whether FedEx Express is liable to class members who can prove they were injured by the paystub deficiencies. The judge has not yet decided on the amount, if any, of liability to the State of California or to the class, but has wide discretion. A material loss in this matter is reasonably possible but not estimable because both the number of class members and the amount, if any, to which some class members may be entitled is uncertain, and in ruling the judge may consider some or all of the following: whether employees suffered injury; whether remedial action was undertaken; whether there was knowledge of any violation; whether any violation was intentional; and whether any award would be unjust under the circumstances.

Other. FedEx and its subsidiaries are subject to other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of their business. In the opinion of management, the aggregate liability, if any, with respect to these other actions will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.