University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. Federal Express, Inc. EE-NY-0053
Docket / Court 1:01-cv-04366 ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
The New York district office of the EEOC brought this suit against Federal Express, Inc. in June 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint apparently alleged religious discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Attorney General's ... read more >
The New York district office of the EEOC brought this suit against Federal Express, Inc. in June 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint apparently alleged religious discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Attorney General's Office, State of New York intervened in July 2001 and filed a complaint. Federal Express, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted with respect to the EEOC, but not with respect to the Attorney General's Office. The EEOC moved for reconsideration, but was denied. EEOC v. Federal Express Corporation, 268 F.Supp.2d 192 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). Additional complainants also intervened. After a settlement conference, the parties settled the case in January 2006 by entry of a settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement between the Attorney General's Office and Federal Express, Inc. required Federal Express to adopt an anti-discrimination policy, and post and distribute through its employee handbook a notice of employee rights to all employees. The agreement also required Federal Express to adopt a policy whereby employees whose personal appearance does not comply with the stated dress code are allowed to submit a request for an exception; when the employee's request for an exception is based on a sincerely held religious belief, Federal Express is required to accommodate the employee so long as it does not impose undue hardship on Federal Express' business. The agreement had a term of two years and two months. In the event of non-compliance, the Court retained jurisdiction to ensure compliance.

Justin Kanter - 05/23/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Reporting
Discrimination-area
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Hiring
Promotion
Discrimination-basis
Religion discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
Private Party intervened in EEOC suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Federal Express, Inc.
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration 2002 - 2004
Case Closing Year 2002
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:01−cv−04366 (E.D.N.Y.) 01/19/2006
EE-NY-0053-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Opinion 06/17/2003 (268 F.Supp.2d 192) (E.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0053-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Consent Decree 01/12/2006
EE-NY-0053-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges None on record
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers None on record
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -