Foster v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc.

Background

Matt Foster brought claims under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The defendants were United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (UPSA), UPS Freight, Inc., and TForce Freight, Inc. The opinion states that UPS Freight became TForce Freight in 2021; it refers to TForce Freight as UPS Freight for purposes of the opinion.

Foster worked as a City Driver for UPS Freight. After he voluntarily provided medical records describing forgetfulness, changes in verbal intellectual functioning, stuttering, and the need for testing related to possible seizure activity, UPS Freight removed him from driving work in April 2017. He returned after providing a medical provider’s letter clearing him for full employment without restrictions.

Foster later requested workplace accommodations. After meeting with UPS Freight supervisors, he identified difficulties with memory and a need for repetitive tasks, additional time, and written instructions. UPS Freight said it would conduct a six-month search for a position that could accommodate him. In January 2018, it offered him a Road Driver position, which he accepted. The opinion states that he retained the same benefits and seniority and received a higher rate of pay, although he preferred to remain a City Driver.

In November 2021, UPS Freight terminated Foster after he crashed into a barrier, failed to report the crash to management, drove at least 20 additional miles with a severely damaged wheel, and reported the crash improperly. A grievance panel later reduced the discipline to a time-served suspension and ordered his return without back pay. UPS Freight also issued disciplinary notices in December 2021 and January 2022 for route violations and vehicle and recordkeeping violations identified during a Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles inspection.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Claims against UPSA — Counts 5 through 16

The court granted UPSA summary judgment on all claims against it. The court held that an employer-employee relationship is required for Foster’s NYSHRL and ADA claims. Although UPSA was the parent company of UPS Freight until 2021, the court applied the four-factor “single employer” analysis: interrelated operations, centralized control of labor relations, common management, and common ownership or financial control.

The court found that the evidence showed UPS Freight directly employed Foster, paid him, provided his handbook and orientation, operated under its own collective bargaining agreement, handled his discipline, and made the relevant employment decisions. The court treated the lack of centralized control of labor relations as especially important. It also noted that the record was unclear about common management and common ownership, but said those factors were less useful because they can ordinarily exist in a parent-subsidiary relationship. Foster’s statements that human resources was centralized and that the relationship was confusing were, in the court’s view, too conclusory to create a genuine factual dispute. The court therefore held that UPSA and UPS Freight were not a single employer and granted summary judgment to UPSA on Counts 5 through 16.

2017 NYSHRL claims against UPS Freight — Counts 1 through 4

The court granted UPS Freight summary judgment on Counts 1 through 4. For Counts 1 and 2, the court held that UPS Freight had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for removing Foster from City Driver work in April 2017: concerns about whether his medical condition made it safe for him to operate tractor-trailers. Foster did not provide evidence, beyond conclusory statements, showing that this reason was false or that disability-related bias motivated the decision.

The court also ruled against Foster on his retaliation claim concerning the April 2017 removal. It held that voluntarily providing medical records was not protected activity because Foster was not protesting or opposing unlawful discrimination.

For Count 3, the court held that UPS Freight reasonably accommodated Foster. The Road Driver position allowed him to retain the same benefits and seniority and paid him more, even though he preferred the City Driver position. The court stated that an employer need not provide the employee’s preferred accommodation when it provides another reasonable accommodation. For Count 4, the court held that Foster did not show that his November 2017 removal from work was retaliation for requesting an accommodation. The record instead showed that he was removed for failing to follow direct instructions and other workplace rules.

2021 and 2022 NYSHRL and ADA claims against UPS Freight — Counts 17 through 20

The court granted UPS Freight summary judgment on Counts 17 through 20. It held that Foster’s November 2021 termination and the December 2021 and January 2022 disciplinary notices were issued for workplace and vehicle-related conduct, not because of his disability. Foster did not dispute responsibility for the conduct described in the disciplinary reports. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the NYSHRL and ADA discrimination claims in Counts 17 and 19.

The court also granted summary judgment on the NYSHRL and ADA retaliation claims in Counts 18 and 20. Because the court found that the challenged actions were based on legitimate enforcement of workplace policies rather than disability-related motives or retaliation, it concluded that those actions could not support retaliation claims.

Disposition

The court granted UPSA’s motion for summary judgment and UPS Freight’s motion for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for UPSA, UPS Freight, and TForce Freight against Foster and to terminate the action.