A proposed class settlement of Gillyard v. Federal Express, a Seattle federal wage case over alleged missed meal and rest breaks and a second-job ban at FedEx, went to the judge for preliminary approval on October 7, 2026. The court has not ruled, and there is nothing for FedEx workers to file yet.
Allegations Only · Settlement Not Yet Approved
This article describes a proposed class action settlement that a court has not approved. The claims described below are unproven allegations. Federal Express Corporation has not been found liable, and there is nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Happened
On October 7, 2026, the plaintiffs in Gillyard v. Federal Express Corporation, No. 2:24-cv-01666-JHC, filed a motion asking the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to preliminarily approve a class action settlement with Federal Express Corporation, according to the court docket. The motion is noted for consideration on November 4, 2026. Judge John H. Chun has not ruled on it.FedEx has agreed to pay up to nearly $31 million under the deal, according to a Law360 report published October 8. That figure has not been confirmed from the settlement agreement itself.
The same day the motion was filed, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with FedEx's consent, adding a second named plaintiff. A preliminary approval motion is the first of two court approvals a class settlement needs; a final approval hearing would be scheduled only if the judge grants the first.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What the Workers Allege
Law360 summarized the claims as alleging that FedEx failed to provide required meal and rest breaks, manipulated employee time records, and barred lower-earning workers from holding outside jobs. FedEx has not been found liable for any of it. The company moved to dismiss the amended complaint in May 2026, and that motion was taken off the calendar in July after the plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement; the docket notes that FedEx may bring it back if the settlement falls through.The outside-job allegation lines up with a Washington statute, RCW 49.62.070, which generally bars an employer from restricting an employee who earns less than twice the state minimum wage from taking a second job, working for another employer or being self-employed. The statute carves out work that raises safety concerns or interferes with the employer's reasonable and normal scheduling, and it leaves duties such as loyalty in place. Washington's meal and rest period rules are in WAC 296-126-092.
OCA has covered two other Washington settlements over alleged second-job bans for low-wage workers: Swire Coca-Cola and Big Al's.
Who Would Be Covered
The proposed class definition is in the settlement papers filed with the motion, which were not available for this report. The case was first filed in King County Superior Court and removed to federal court in October 2024, and its claims track Washington wage rules, which points to Federal Express Corporation employees who worked in Washington. The exact class, job titles and time period have not been confirmed.The defendant is Federal Express Corporation, the FedEx Express operating company. It is a different entity from FedEx Ground Package System, the defendant in the separate Minton FedEx Ground Maryland wage settlement.
How Payments Would Work
Whether class members would need to file a claim, or would be paid automatically, has not been confirmed from the settlement agreement. The allocation formula, any requested attorneys' fees and service awards, the settlement administrator and the opt-out and objection deadlines are all set out in the agreement and the proposed notice, and none of those terms has been approved. If the court grants preliminary approval, class members would ordinarily receive a court-approved notice describing those terms and deadlines.What Happens Next
The next step is the judge's decision on the preliminary approval motion. If it is granted, the order would typically appoint a settlement administrator, approve a notice plan and set a date for a final approval hearing. If it is denied, the parties can revise the deal and try again. No payment date exists until final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved.The case history runs through a mediation on October 30, 2025, a first amended complaint in March 2026, a notice of settlement filed July 26, 2026, and the October 7 filings: the second amended complaint, the preliminary approval motion, two supporting declarations from plaintiffs' counsel and a request for judicial notice with ten exhibits. Rekhi & Wolk, P.S. and Ferraro Vega Employment Lawyers represent the plaintiffs. The docket also refers to a related case, Alfred v. Federal Express.
Questions
Has the court approved the FedEx Washington wage settlement?
Not as of October 23, 2026. The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval on October 7, 2026, and the docket shows it noted for consideration on November 4, 2026. Judge John H. Chun of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington has not ruled on it, and a final approval decision would come later still.
Who would the proposed FedEx settlement cover?
The class definition is set out in the settlement papers, which were not available for this report. The case was first filed in King County Superior Court and its claims track Washington wage rules, which points to Federal Express Corporation employees who worked in Washington, but the exact class, job titles and time period have not been confirmed.
Does FedEx admit wrongdoing?
No finding of wrongdoing has been made. The meal break, rest break, time-record and outside-employment claims are allegations, FedEx moved to dismiss the case before the parties reported a settlement, and no court has decided whether the claims have merit.
Is this the same case as the FedEx Ground Maryland wage settlement?
No. Gillyard is against Federal Express Corporation in federal court in Seattle. The Maryland matter, Minton v. FedEx Ground Package System, is a separate case against a different FedEx subsidiary over off-the-clock work at Maryland package-handling facilities.
What does Washington law say about second jobs?
RCW 49.62.070 bars an employer from restricting an employee who earns less than twice the state minimum wage from holding an additional job, working for another employer or being self-employed. The statute has exceptions for safety concerns and for interference with the employer's reasonable and normal scheduling, and it leaves duties such as loyalty in place.
Sources
- Gillyard v. Federal Express Corporation, No. 2:24-cv-01666 (W.D. Wash.) — docket (PacerMonitor)
- Law360 — FedEx Inks $30M Deal In Wash. Breaks, Noncompete Suit (October 8, 2026)
- RCW 49.62.070 — Employees having an additional job
- WAC 296-126-092 — Meal periods and rest breaks
