Stephens v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Background

Nicholas Stephens sued United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) over an alleged assault by another UPS employee, identified in the complaint as Martin. Stephens alleged that he was working at UPS on March 22, 2022, when he observed Martin performing work outside his responsibilities and asked him to stop. Stephens then began preparing a union grievance. He alleged that an operations manager told Martin about the grievance and where Stephens’s vehicle was parked. Stephens alleged that Martin later threatened and punched him while he was at his vehicle during his lunch break, causing serious injuries.

Stephens also alleged that UPS personnel prevented him from immediately leaving work, asked him not to report the incident to law enforcement in exchange for medical care and job security, and later retaliated against him. The operative Third Amended Complaint asserted only a negligence and personal-injury claim against UPS.

UPS’s Motion to Dismiss

UPS argued that California’s workers’ compensation exclusivity rule barred Stephens’s negligence claim. That rule generally limits an employee injured in the course of employment to workers’ compensation rather than a tort lawsuit. UPS also argued that Stephens had failed to state a negligence claim.

The court denied the motion based on the workers’ compensation rule. It concluded that UPS had not shown, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, that the alleged injury occurred while Stephens was performing employment services or that his employment proximately caused the injury. The court noted that Stephens alleged the assault occurred during his lunch break near his vehicle in the UPS parking lot.

The court also denied UPS’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It held that Stephens plausibly alleged negligence under theories of respondeat superior, meaning an employer’s potential responsibility for an employee’s tort committed within the scope of employment, and ratification, meaning an employer’s approval or adoption of an employee’s otherwise unauthorized misconduct. The court relied on allegations that the assault arose from Stephens’s planned work-related grievance and that UPS personnel informed Martin about the grievance and Stephens’s vehicle, failed to identify Martin, and took adverse action against Stephens afterward.

Request to File a Fourth Amended Complaint

The court granted in part and denied in part Stephens’s request for leave to amend. The court granted permission to add facts supporting his negligence claim under a ratification theory and to add a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court denied permission to add claims under California Civil Code sections 3281, 3282, and 3283 because those provisions address damages and do not create independent legal claims. It also denied permission to add a spoliation-of-evidence claim because California law does not recognize a separate tort claim for intentional spoliation by a party to the pending lawsuit when the alleged spoliation is discovered before that lawsuit ends.

The court denied permission to add a due-process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a claim for violating federal rights under color of state law. The court concluded that Stephens had not alleged either a violation of a constitutional or federal right or action by someone acting under color of state law.

Disposition

The court denied UPS’s motion to dismiss. It granted in part and denied in part Stephens’s request for leave to amend. Stephens could either proceed with the Third Amended Complaint or file a fourth amended complaint limited to additional facts supporting the personal-injury and negligence claim and an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. Judge Jacquelyn Corley ordered Stephens to make that election by December 23, 2024, and set a case-management conference for February 13, 2025.