FEDEX CORP
FDX
Industrials
2
exclusion reasons
2 themes
This page is part of our public exclusion list — a transparency tool that shows which companies we screen out and why. It is not investment advice, and it is not an accusation. But it is subject to change as our understanding of the facts evolves.
In January 2025, the EEOC sued Federal Express Corporation for disability discrimination after FedEx denied continued telework accommodations to several disabled dispatchers at its downtown Manhattan office and demanded their immediate return to in-person work. A 30-year career dispatcher who had successfully performed her duties remotely for nearly three years (approximately April 2020 through February 2023) requested to continue teleworking as an accommodation for disabilities that substantially limited her ability to walk. FedEx denied the request based on an alleged operational need for all dispatchers in the office, failed to engage in a meaningful interactive process to explore alternative accommodations, and effectively forced at least one dispatcher into retirement. The EEOC contends FedEx violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to reasonably accommodate qualifying disabilities absent undue hardship, and separately maintained a "100% healed" policy requiring employees with disabilities to be fully recovered before returning to work — a blanket policy that violates the ADA's individualized assessment requirement.
In NLRB Case No. 28-CA-023335, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. was found to have violated the National Labor Relations Act by misclassifying drivers as independent contractors to avoid providing employee benefits.
Update (2026-03-31): The Ninth Circuit separately ruled FedEx misclassified California Ground/Home Delivery drivers, leading to a $240M settlement in 2016 resolving cases across 20 states — one of the largest misclassification settlements in US history.
Research Sources
4 organizations
Related Exclusions
Wondering what we do invest in?
The Naughty List
A digest of changes to our exclusion list — new additions, removals, and the evidence behind them. We review the list continuously as new evidence surfaces.
Companies appear on our exclusion list based on our investment judgment — not because they've done anything illegal. This is a difference of values and opinion, not an accusation of wrongdoing. Exclusion does not constitute a recommendation against investing in any company, and absence from the list does not constitute a recommendation to invest.
This information is provided for educational and transparency purposes only and should not be relied upon as investment advice. Data is drawn from independent watchdogs, NGOs, government registries, and Ethical Capital's ongoing research — see Research Sources for the full list.
Ethical Capital LLC is a state-registered investment adviser in Utah (CRD #316032). Registration does not imply a certain level of skill or training.