Tisdale v. Federal Express Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
415 F.3d 516 (2005)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Richard Tisdale (plaintiff) worked for Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) (defendant) at FedEx’s Nashville distribution center, known as BNART. Over four years, Tisdale expressed concerns about Black BNART employees like himself being treated unfavorably. Several complaints were made to Tim Stuthard, BNART’s operation manager and Tisdale’s supervisor. On February 3, 2000, FedEx district manager Frances Miller visited BNART, holding a meeting with all employees. Tisdale again expressed concern about BNART’s treatment of Black employees. Miller advised Tisdale to put his concerns in writing. On February 13, a letter co-authored by Tisdale and signed by 18 BNART employees was sent to Miller. However, on February 11, Tisdale had been suspended for allegedly stealing FedEx property. He was subsequently terminated by Stuthard. Tisdale sued FedEx under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), alleging that his termination constituted unlawful retaliation for reporting racial discrimination. The jury held in Tisdale’s favor and awarded him $15,000 in backpay and $100,000 in punitive damages. FedEx appealed the punitive-damages award, arguing that even if Stuthard and Miller engaged in retaliatory conduct, FedEx was not vicariously liable for punitive damages because (1) Stuthard and Miller were merely mid-level managers and (2) any retaliatory conduct was contrary to FedEx’s written antidiscrimination policy.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 916,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.



