Stephens v. United Parcel Service

Background

Nicholas Stephens, who represented himself, brought a negligence and personal-injury action against United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), his former employer. He alleged that another UPS employee, Martin Griffin, assaulted him on March 22, 2022, at a UPS parking lot. Stephens testified that the assault followed a dispute about Griffin performing union work and Stephens’s preparation of a union grievance. Stephens received emergency medical treatment and was later diagnosed with a significant traumatic brain injury. He also filed a workers’ compensation action based on the incident.

Stephens originally filed the case in state court, and UPS removed it to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. After earlier amendments and rulings, Stephens proceeded on one negligence/personal-injury claim. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Evidentiary objections

Stephens separately moved to strike a declaration from Eric Smith and UPS’s submission of Stephens’s deposition transcript. The court stated that separately filed evidentiary objections violated the Northern District of California’s local rule, which requires such objections to be included in the opposition brief. The court nevertheless considered the objections and overruled the objection to Smith’s declaration. It found no basis to exclude the declaration because UPS was not required to provide it before filing, Stephens had identified Smith as a witness, and Stephens had not shown that additional discovery was needed. The court treated Stephens’s objection to the deposition transcript as moot because it did not consider or rely on the deposition errata.

Summary-judgment standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court considered the evidence submitted in support of and opposition to both motions and viewed the evidence in the light required for the nonmoving party.

Workers’ compensation exclusivity

The court applied California’s workers’ compensation exclusivity rule, which generally makes workers’ compensation the sole remedy for an employee’s physical or emotional injury arising out of and occurring during employment. Under the rule, an employee may receive workers’ compensation benefits instead of pursuing a tort damages judgment against the employer.

The court used a two-step analysis. First, it considered whether the injury fell within the conditions for workers’ compensation coverage. Second, it considered whether an exception to the exclusivity rule applied.

Step one: injury within the employment relationship

The court found that the first step was satisfied. Stephens stated in his opposition that the assault occurred during his lunch break near his vehicle in UPS’s parking lot. The court held that an injury occurring on the employer’s premises during a lunch break remains within the course of employment. The court also held that the assault was causally connected to Stephens’s employment because Stephens testified that Griffin assaulted him after Stephens objected to Griffin performing union work and prepared a grievance. The court concluded that every reasonable factfinder would have to find the employment connection established.

Step two: no applicable exception

The court rejected the potential exceptions raised by the record. California Labor Code section 3601(a)(1) allows an employee to sue another employee when the injury is caused by that employee’s willful and unprovoked physical aggression. The court held that this exception did not apply because Stephens sued UPS, not Griffin.

California Labor Code section 3602(b) allows a damages action against an employer in certain circumstances, including when the injury is caused by a willful physical assault by the employer or when the employer fraudulently conceals the injury and its connection to employment. The court held that this exception did not apply because Griffin, not UPS, committed the assault. The court also held that the doctrine of respondeat superior, which can make an employer vicariously responsible for an employee’s tort committed within the scope of employment, could not extend this exception to UPS.

The court separately considered Stephens’s argument that UPS ratified Griffin’s conduct. Ratification can support employer liability when an employer fails to investigate or respond to an employee’s intentional wrongdoing. Stephens asserted that a UPS operations manager notified Griffin about the planned grievance, told Griffin where Stephens’s vehicle was, refused to disclose Griffin’s identity, and took adverse action against Stephens after the assault. UPS submitted Smith’s declaration stating that UPS investigated the incident and promptly terminated Griffin. The court found that Stephens offered no evidence contradicting Smith’s testimony or supporting an inference that UPS ratified the assault. The court concluded that Stephens’s speculation did not create a genuine factual dispute.

Disposition

Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted UPS’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule barred Stephens’s sole negligence/personal-injury claim against UPS and stated that workers’ compensation was his exclusive remedy. The order also overruled Stephens’s objection to Smith’s declaration, treated his deposition-transcript objection as moot, and stated that the order disposed of Docket Nos. 118, 123, 126, and 127. The court stated that judgment would be entered separately.