Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Nov. 30, 2017
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Contingencies	(8) Contingencies Independent Contractor — Lawsuits and Administrative Proceedings. During the second quarter of 2018, the final objector to the $228 million settlement in the case that was remanded by the multidistrict litigation court to California and appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals settled with plaintiffs’ counsel and FedEx Ground paid the settlement amount. FedEx Ground is involved in lawsuits and administrative proceedings claiming that owner-operators engaged under a contractor model no longer in use should have been treated as employees of FedEx Ground, rather than independent contractors. In addition, we are defending joint-employer cases where it is alleged that FedEx Ground should be treated as an employer of the drivers employed by owner-operators engaged by FedEx Ground. These cases are in varying stages of litigation, and we are not currently able to estimate an amount or range of potential loss in all of these matters. However, we do not expect to incur, individually or in the aggregate, a material loss in these matters. Nevertheless, adverse determinations in matters related to owner-operators engaged by FedEx Ground could, among other things, entitle certain owner-operators to the reimbursement of certain expenses, and their drivers to the benefit of wage-and-hour laws, and result in employment and withholding tax and benefit liability for FedEx Ground. We believe that owner-operators engaged by FedEx Ground are properly classified as independent contractors and that FedEx Ground is not an employer of the drivers employed by these owner-operators. 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 was 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 or range of loss, if any, cannot be estimated at this stage of the litigation, but 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 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, and we will pursue all available remedies against the sellers of GENCO to recover any losses in this matter. Other Matters. During the third quarter of 2017, FedEx Trade Networks informed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) that in connection with certain customs entries it may have made improper claims for (i) reduced-duty treatment and (ii) duty-free treatment. In the fourth quarter of 2017 we established accruals totaling $39.3 million for the then-current estimated probable loss for these matters. In the first quarter of 2018, FedEx Trade Networks tendered payments to CBP in these matters totaling $46.5 million, and an additional expense of $7.2 million was recognized. CBP acknowledged receipt of the amounts tendered in these matters, and we are awaiting a response indicating whether these matters are fully resolved. 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.

(8) Contingencies

Independent Contractor — Lawsuits and Administrative Proceedings. During the second quarter of 2018, the final objector to the $228 million settlement in the case that was remanded by the multidistrict litigation court to California and appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals settled with plaintiffs’ counsel and FedEx Ground paid the settlement amount.

FedEx Ground is involved in lawsuits and administrative proceedings claiming that owner-operators engaged under a contractor model no longer in use should have been treated as employees of FedEx Ground, rather than independent contractors. In addition, we are defending joint-employer cases where it is alleged that FedEx Ground should be treated as an employer of the drivers employed by owner-operators engaged by FedEx Ground. These cases are in varying stages of litigation, and we are not currently able to estimate an amount or range of potential loss in all of these matters. However, we do not expect to incur, individually or in the aggregate, a material loss in these matters. Nevertheless, adverse determinations in matters related to owner-operators engaged by FedEx Ground could, among other things, entitle certain owner-operators to the reimbursement of certain expenses, and their drivers to the benefit of wage-and-hour laws, and result in employment and withholding tax and benefit liability for FedEx Ground. We believe that owner-operators engaged by FedEx Ground are properly classified as independent contractors and that FedEx Ground is not an employer of the drivers employed by these owner-operators.

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 was 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 or range of loss, if any, cannot be estimated at this stage of the litigation, but 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 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, and we will pursue all available remedies against the sellers of GENCO to recover any losses in this matter.

Other Matters. During the third quarter of 2017, FedEx Trade Networks informed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) that in connection with certain customs entries it may have made improper claims for (i) reduced-duty treatment and (ii) duty-free treatment. In the fourth quarter of 2017 we established accruals totaling $39.3 million for the then-current estimated probable loss for these matters. In the first quarter of 2018, FedEx Trade Networks tendered payments to CBP in these matters totaling $46.5 million, and an additional expense of $7.2 million was recognized. CBP acknowledged receipt of the amounts tendered in these matters, and we are awaiting a response indicating whether these matters are fully resolved.

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.