Contingencies	12 Months Ended
May 31, 2017
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Contingencies	NOTE 18: CONTINGENCIES Independent Contractor — Lawsuits and State Administrative Proceedings. FedEx Ground is involved in class-action lawsuits, individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative proceedings that claim that the company’s owner-operators under a contractor model no longer in use should have been 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 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 20 states. The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases. The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a determination with respect to the correctness of the district court’s decision and, instead, certified two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh Circuit were stayed. On October 3, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that a 20 factor right to control test applies to claims under the Kansas Wage Payment Act and concluded that under that test, the class members were employees, not independent contractors. The case was subsequently transferred back to the Seventh Circuit, where both parties made filings requesting the action necessary to complete the resolution of the appeals. The parties also made recommendations to the court regarding next steps for the other 19 cases that are before the Seventh Circuit. FedEx Ground requested that each of those cases be separately briefed given the potential differences in the applicable state law from that in Kansas. On July 8, 2015, the Seventh Circuit issued an order and opinion confirming the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court, concluding that the class members were employees, not independent contractors. Additionally, the Seventh Circuit referred the other 19 cases to a representative of the court for purposes of setting a case management conference to address briefing and argument for those cases. During the second quarter of 2015, we established an accrual for the estimated probable loss in the Kansas case. In the second quarter of 2016 the Kansas case settled, and we increased the accrual to the amount of the settlement. During the third quarter of 2016, we reached agreements in principle to settle all of the 19 cases on appeal in the multidistrict independent contractor litigation. We recognized a liability for the expected loss (net of recognized insurance recovery) related to these cases and certain other pending independent-contractor-related proceedings of $204 million. The Kansas case was remanded to the multidistrict litigation court, and the other 19 cases remained at the Seventh Circuit; however, approval proceedings were conducted primarily by the multidistrict litigation court. Plaintiffs filed motions for preliminary approval between June 15 and June 30, 2016, and on August 3 and 4, 2016, the multidistrict litigation court issued orders indicating that it would grant preliminary approval if the Seventh Circuit would remand the cases on appeal for the purpose of entering approval orders. Upon the parties’ joint motion, the Seventh Circuit remanded the cases for this purpose on August 10, 2016, and the multidistrict litigation court entered orders preliminarily approving the settlements on August 17, 2016. Fairness hearings were originally scheduled for January 23 and 24, 2017, but were held on March 13 and 14, 2017. On March 15, 2017, the court issued orders indicating that it would grant final approval of each settlement if the Seventh Circuit remanded the cases on appeal for the purpose of considering and granting final approval. In a series of orders and judgments issued on April 29, May 1, and June 21, 2017, the court granted final approval of all 20 settlements. The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight certified class actions back to the district courts where they were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Seven of these matters settled for immaterial amounts and have received court approval. The case in California was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court reversed the district court decisions and held that the plaintiffs in California were employees as a matter of law and remanded the cases to the district court for further proceedings. In the first quarter of 2015, we recognized an accrual for the then-estimated probable loss in this case. In June 2015, the parties in the California case reached an agreement to settle the matter for $228 million, and in the fourth quarter of 2015 we increased the accrual to that amount. The court entered final judgment on June 20, 2016, and two objectors to the settlement filed appeals with the Ninth Circuit. One objector has settled with plaintiffs’ counsel, and the appeal by the second objector was briefed in the fourth quarter of 2017. The court has indicated that it will schedule argument on the objector’s appeal for the second quarter of 2018. The settlement is not effective until all appeals have been resolved without affecting the court’s approval of the settlement. In addition, we are defending contractor-model cases that are not or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation. These cases are in varying stages of litigation. We do not expect to incur a material loss in these matters; however, it is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of these lawsuits or changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground’s owner-operators could be material. In these cases, we continue to evaluate what facts may arise in the course of discovery and what legal rulings the courts may render and how these facts and rulings might impact the loss. For a number of reasons, we are not currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in these cases. The number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain, as they are dependent on how the class of drivers is defined and how many individuals will qualify based on whatever criteria may be established. In addition, the parties have conducted only very limited discovery into damages in certain of these cases, which could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff and be dependent on evidence pertaining to individual plaintiffs, which has yet to be produced in the cases. Further, the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the court, including on the merits of the claims, on FedEx Ground’s defenses, and on evidentiary issues. As a consequence of these factors, as well as others that are specific to these cases, we are not currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. We do not believe that a material loss is probable in these matters. Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground’s independent contractors could, among other things, entitle certain owner-operators 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. 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. City and State of New York Cigarette Suit. The City of New York and the State of New York filed two related lawsuits against FedEx Ground in December 2013 and November 2014 arising from FedEx Ground’s alleged shipments of cigarettes to New York residents in contravention of several statutes, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and New York’s Public Health Law, as well as common law nuisance claims. In April 2016, the two lawsuits were consolidated and will now proceed as one lawsuit. The first-filed lawsuit alleges that FedEx Ground provided delivery services on behalf of four shippers, and the second-filed lawsuit alleges that FedEx Ground provided delivery services on behalf of six additional shippers; none of these shippers continue to ship in our network. Following motions to dismiss filed in both lawsuits, some of the claims were dismissed entirely or limited. In the first-filed lawsuit, the New York Public Health Law and common law nuisance claims were dismissed and the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed another claim. In the second-filed lawsuit, the common law nuisance claim has been dismissed entirely and the New York Public Health Law claim has been limited to claims arising after September 27, 2013, when an amendment to that law provided enforcement authority to the City of New York and State of New York. Other claims, including the RICO claims, remain in both lawsuits. The likelihood of loss is reasonably possible, but the amount of loss cannot be estimated at this stage of the litigation and we expect the amount of any loss to be immaterial. On July 10, 2017, the City of New York and the State of New York filed a third lawsuit against FedEx Ground and included FedEx Freight as a co-defendant. This new case identifies no shippers or shipments, but generally alleges violations of the same laws that are the subject of the other two lawsuits. The amount or reasonable range of loss, if any, cannot be estimated at this stage of the lawsuit. Environmental Matters. SEC regulations require disclosure of certain environmental matters when a governmental authority is a party to the proceedings and the proceedings involve potential monetary sanctions that management reasonably believes could exceed $100,000. On September 9, 2016, FedEx Supply Chain received a written offer from several District Attorneys’ Offices in California to settle a civil action that the District Attorneys intend to file against FedEx Supply Chain for alleged violations of the state’s hazardous waste regulations. Specifically, the District Attorneys’ Offices allege FedEx Supply Chain unlawfully disposed of hazardous waste at one of its California facilities and caused the illegal transportation and disposal of hazardous waste from the retail stores of a FedEx Supply Chain customer at this same facility. The District Attorneys allege these violations began in 2006 and continued until the facility closed in the spring of 2015. We believe an immaterial loss in this matter is probable. The District Attorneys are also investigating FedEx Supply Chain’s hazardous waste activities at eight additional facilities within California. We will pursue all available remedies against the sellers of GENCO to recover any losses in these matters. Other Matters. During the third quarter of 2017, FedEx Trade Networks informed U.S. Customs and Border Protection that in connection with certain customs entries it may have made improper claims for (i) reduced-duty treatment and (ii) duty-free treatment. Loss in these matters is probable, and in the fourth quarter of 2017 we established accruals totaling $39.3 million for the currently estimated probable loss for these matters. FedEx Trade Networks is continuing to review these matters, however, and a material loss is reasonably possible. FedEx and its subsidiaries are subject to other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business, including certain lawsuits containing various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour violations in which plaintiffs claim, 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. 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.

NOTE 18: CONTINGENCIES

Independent Contractor — Lawsuits and State Administrative Proceedings. FedEx Ground is involved in class-action lawsuits, individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative proceedings that claim that the company’s owner-operators under a contractor model no longer in use should have been 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 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 20 states. The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases. The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a determination with respect to the correctness of the district court’s decision and, instead, certified two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh Circuit were stayed.

On October 3, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that a 20 factor right to control test applies to claims under the Kansas Wage Payment Act and concluded that under that test, the class members were employees, not independent contractors. The case was subsequently transferred back to the Seventh Circuit, where both parties made filings requesting the action necessary to complete the resolution of the appeals. The parties also made recommendations to the court regarding next steps for the other 19 cases that are before the Seventh Circuit. FedEx Ground requested that each of those cases be separately briefed given the potential differences in the applicable state law from that in Kansas. On July 8, 2015, the Seventh Circuit issued an order and opinion confirming the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court, concluding that the class members were employees, not independent contractors. Additionally, the Seventh Circuit referred the other 19 cases to a representative of the court for purposes of setting a case management conference to address briefing and argument for those cases.

During the second quarter of 2015, we established an accrual for the estimated probable loss in the Kansas case. In the second quarter of 2016 the Kansas case settled, and we increased the accrual to the amount of the settlement.

During the third quarter of 2016, we reached agreements in principle to settle all of the 19 cases on appeal in the multidistrict independent contractor litigation. We recognized a liability for the expected loss (net of recognized insurance recovery) related to these cases and certain other pending independent-contractor-related proceedings of $204 million.

The Kansas case was remanded to the multidistrict litigation court, and the other 19 cases remained at the Seventh Circuit; however, approval proceedings were conducted primarily by the multidistrict litigation court. Plaintiffs filed motions for preliminary approval between June 15 and June 30, 2016, and on August 3 and 4, 2016, the multidistrict litigation court issued orders indicating that it would grant preliminary approval if the Seventh Circuit would remand the cases on appeal for the purpose of entering approval orders. Upon the parties’ joint motion, the Seventh Circuit remanded the cases for this purpose on August 10, 2016, and the multidistrict litigation court entered orders preliminarily approving the settlements on August 17, 2016. Fairness hearings were originally scheduled for January 23 and 24, 2017, but were held on March 13 and 14, 2017. On March 15, 2017, the court issued orders indicating that it would grant final approval of each settlement if the Seventh Circuit remanded the cases on appeal for the purpose of considering and granting final approval. In a series of orders and judgments issued on April 29, May 1, and June 21, 2017, the court granted final approval of all 20 settlements.

The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight certified class actions back to the district courts where they were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Seven of these matters settled for immaterial amounts and have received court approval.

The case in California was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court reversed the district court decisions and held that the plaintiffs in California were employees as a matter of law and remanded the cases to the district court for further proceedings. In the first quarter of 2015, we recognized an accrual for the then-estimated probable loss in this case.

In June 2015, the parties in the California case reached an agreement to settle the matter for $228 million, and in the fourth quarter of 2015 we increased the accrual to that amount. The court entered final judgment on June 20, 2016, and two objectors to the settlement filed appeals with the Ninth Circuit. One objector has settled with plaintiffs’ counsel, and the appeal by the second objector was briefed in the fourth quarter of 2017. The court has indicated that it will schedule argument on the objector’s appeal for the second quarter of 2018. The settlement is not effective until all appeals have been resolved without affecting the court’s approval of the settlement.

In addition, we are defending contractor-model cases that are not or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation. These cases are in varying stages of litigation. We do not expect to incur a material loss in these matters; however, it is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of these lawsuits or changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground’s owner-operators could be material. In these cases, we continue to evaluate what facts may arise in the course of discovery and what legal rulings the courts may render and how these facts and rulings might impact the loss. For a number of reasons, we are not currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in these cases. The number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain, as they are dependent on how the class of drivers is defined and how many individuals will qualify based on whatever criteria may be established. In addition, the parties have conducted only very limited discovery into damages in certain of these cases, which could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff and be dependent on evidence pertaining to individual plaintiffs, which has yet to be produced in the cases. Further, the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the court, including on the merits of the claims, on FedEx Ground’s defenses, and on evidentiary issues. As a consequence of these factors, as well as others that are specific to these cases, we are not currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. We do not believe that a material loss is probable in these matters.

Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground’s independent contractors could, among other things, entitle certain owner-operators 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. 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.

City and State of New York Cigarette Suit. The City of New York and the State of New York filed two related lawsuits against FedEx Ground in December 2013 and November 2014 arising from FedEx Ground’s alleged shipments of cigarettes to New York residents in contravention of several statutes, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and New York’s Public Health Law, as well as common law nuisance claims. In April 2016, the two lawsuits were consolidated and will now proceed as one lawsuit. The first-filed lawsuit alleges that FedEx Ground provided delivery services on behalf of four shippers, and the second-filed lawsuit alleges that FedEx Ground provided delivery services on behalf of six additional shippers; none of these shippers continue to ship in our network. Following motions to dismiss filed in both lawsuits, some of the claims were dismissed entirely or limited. In the first-filed lawsuit, the New York Public Health Law and common law nuisance claims were dismissed and the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed another claim. In the second-filed lawsuit, the common law nuisance claim has been dismissed entirely and the New York Public Health Law claim has been limited to claims arising after September 27, 2013, when an amendment to that law provided enforcement authority to the City of New York and State of New York. Other claims, including the RICO claims, remain in both lawsuits. The likelihood of loss is reasonably possible, but the amount of loss cannot be estimated at this stage of the litigation and we expect the amount of any loss to be immaterial.

On July 10, 2017, the City of New York and the State of New York filed a third lawsuit against FedEx Ground and included FedEx Freight as a co-defendant. This new case identifies no shippers or shipments, but generally alleges violations of the same laws that are the subject of the other two lawsuits. The amount or reasonable range of loss, if any, cannot be estimated at this stage of the lawsuit.

Environmental Matters. SEC regulations require disclosure of certain environmental matters when a governmental authority is a party to the proceedings and the proceedings involve potential monetary sanctions that management reasonably believes could exceed $100,000.

On September 9, 2016, FedEx Supply Chain received a written offer from several District Attorneys’ Offices in California to settle a civil action that the District Attorneys intend to file against FedEx Supply Chain for alleged violations of the state’s hazardous waste regulations. Specifically, the District Attorneys’ Offices allege FedEx Supply Chain unlawfully disposed of hazardous waste at one of its California facilities and caused the illegal transportation and disposal of hazardous waste from the retail stores of a FedEx Supply Chain customer at this same facility. The District Attorneys allege these violations began in 2006 and continued until the facility closed in the spring of 2015. We believe an immaterial loss in this matter is probable. The District Attorneys are also investigating FedEx Supply Chain’s hazardous waste activities at eight additional facilities within California. We will pursue all available remedies against the sellers of GENCO to recover any losses in these matters.

Other Matters. During the third quarter of 2017, FedEx Trade Networks informed U.S. Customs and Border Protection that in connection with certain customs entries it may have made improper claims for (i) reduced-duty treatment and (ii) duty-free treatment. Loss in these matters is probable, and in the fourth quarter of 2017 we established accruals totaling $39.3 million for the currently estimated probable loss for these matters. FedEx Trade Networks is continuing to review these matters, however, and a material loss is reasonably possible.

FedEx and its subsidiaries are subject to other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business, including certain lawsuits containing various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour violations in which plaintiffs claim, 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. 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.