XML 57 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.5.0.2

Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
May 31, 2016
Loss Contingency [Abstract] |
Contingencies | NOTE 1 8: C ONTINGENCIES Wage-and-Hour. We are a defendant in several 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. Independent Contractor — Lawsuits and State Administrative Proceedings. FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits (including 25 that have been certified as class actions), 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 are 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. The settlement will require court approval. 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. All of these settlements require court approval. 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 remain at the Seventh Circuit; however, approval proceedings will be conducted primarily by the multidistrict litigation court. Plaintiffs filed preliminary approval motions in all 20 cases on June 15 and 29, 2016. The multidistrict litigation court set a fairness hearing for January 23 and 24, 2017. 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. Three of these matters settled for immaterial amounts and have received court approval. The cases in Arkansas and Florida settled in the second quarter of 2016, and we established an accrual in each of these cases for the amount of the settlement. The settlements are subject to court approval. On January 13, 2016, the court preliminarily approved the settlement of the Florida case and granted final approval at a fairness hearing on July 15, 2016. On January 29, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in the Arkansas case. Two cases in Oregon and one in California were appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court reversed the district court decisions and held that the plaintiffs in California and Oregon were employees as a matter of law and remanded the cases to their respective district courts for further proceedings. In the first quarter of 2015, we recognized an accrual for the then-estimated probable loss in those cases. 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 granted final approval of the settlement on June 15, 2016. However, on June 30, 2016, an objector to the class settlement filed an appeal of the court's approval of the settlement. We anticipate that the appeal will be argued in the spring of 2017. The settlement is not effective until all appeals have been resolved without affecting the court's approval of the settlement. The two cases in Oregon were consolidated with a non-multidistrict litigation independent contractor case in Oregon. The three cases collectively settled in the second quarter of 2016, and we increased the accrual in these cases to the amount of the settlement. The settlement was preliminarily approved on April 20, 2016 and the court set a fairness hearing for October 18, 2016. 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. W e 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 FedEx Ground's 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. Pursuant to motions to dismiss filed in both lawsuits, some of the claims have been 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 court dismissed, without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to refile the claim at a later date, the New York Public Health Law claim. 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. 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. In February 2014, FedEx Ground received oral communications from District Attorneys' Offices (representing California's county environmental authorities) and the California Attorney General's Office (representing the California Division of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”)) that they were seeking civil penalties for alleged violations of the state's hazardous waste regulations. Specifically, the California environmental authorities alleged that FedEx Ground improperly generates and/or handles, stores and transports hazardous waste from its stations to its hubs in California. In April 2014, FedEx Ground filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against the Director of the California DTSC and the County District Attorneys with whom we had been negotiating. In June 2014, the California Attorney General filed a complaint against FedEx Ground in Sacramento County Superior Court alleging violations by FedEx Ground as described above. The County District Attorneys filed a similar complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court in July 2014. The county and state authorities filed a motion to dismiss FedEx Ground's declaratory judgment action, and their motion was granted on January 22, 2015. FedEx Ground filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 23, 2015. FedEx Ground and the County District Attorneys reached an agreement to resolve all claims between them, and on August 10, 2015, they filed a negotiated final judgment in Sacramento County Superior Court that the court subsequently approved. In the fourth quarter of 2015, we established an accrual for the final judgment amount, which was immaterial. On November 19, 2015, FedEx Ground and the DTSC agreed to settle their dispute, and on June 2, 2016, filed a negotiated final judgment in Sacramento County Superior Court, consistent with the terms FedEx Ground agreed upon with the C ounty District Attorneys. We established an accrual for the settlement amount in the second quarter of 2016. This amount was immaterial. On January 14, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a Grand Jury Subpoena to FedEx Express relating to an asbestos matter previously investigated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On May 1, 2014, the DOJ informed us that it had determined to continue to pursue the matter as a criminal case, citing seven asbestos-related regulatory violations associated with removal of roof materials from a hangar in Puerto Rico during cleaning and repair activity, as well as violation of waste disposal requirements. Loss is reasonably possible; however, the amount of any loss is expected to be immaterial. Department of Justice Indictment – Internet Pharmacy Shipments. In the past, we received requests for information from the DOJ in the Northern District of California in connection with a criminal investigation relating to the transportation of packages for online pharmacies that may have shipped pharmaceuticals in violation of federal law. In July 2014, the DOJ filed a criminal indictment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in connection with the matter. A superseding indictment was filed in August 2014. The indictment alleges that FedEx Corporation, FedEx Express and FedEx Services, together with certain pharmacies, conspired to unlawfully distribute controlled substances, unlawfully distributed controlled substances and conspired to unlawfully distribute misbranded drugs. The superseding indictment adds conspiracy to launder money counts related to services provided to and payments from online pharmacies. In March 2016, the Court denied our motions to dismiss the money laundering charges and granted our motion to dismiss FedEx Corporation and FedEx Services from certain counts. Trial in this matter commenced on June 13, 2016, and on June 17, 2016, the DOJ dismissed all remaining criminal charges against FedEx and its subsidiaries. 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.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LossContingencyAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition Tabular disclosure of the loss contingencies that were reported in the period or disclosed as of the balance sheet date. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 6 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14472-108349 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6851643&loc=d3e12021-110248 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 5 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14453-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 3 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6851643&loc=d3e12053-110248 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 3 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14394-108349 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14326-108349 Reference 8: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 9 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14557-108349 Reference 9: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 10 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14615-108349 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_ScheduleOfLossContingenciesByContingencyTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration