Goins v. United Parcel Service Inc

Background

The plaintiffs brought a proposed nationwide class action alleging that UPS discriminated against female employees based on gender, age, and disability. The 18 named plaintiffs worked in different UPS positions and facilities in California, Arkansas, Washington, and Nevada. Their second amended complaint asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, the federal Equal Pay Act, the California Equal Pay Act, and California’s unfair-competition law.

The proposed class included female UPS employees in specified positions nationwide, including employees who were over 40 or disabled and women who allegedly experienced gender-based equal-pay violations. The complaint sought injunctive relief and monetary remedies.

Defendant’s motion

UPS moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. UPS also argued that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust required administrative remedies for their discrimination claims. If dismissal was not granted with prejudice, UPS asked the court to strike the class allegations.

Administrative exhaustion and discrimination claims

The court held that the January 2023 administrative charge filed by Goins could not satisfy the exhaustion requirement. The charge was filed after the lawsuit began, did not relate back to Goins’s earlier charges, covered conduct outside the relevant 300-day period, and lacked enough factual detail to give UPS effective notice of the claims.

The court also held that the administrative charges submitted for Goins, Lopez, and Jones-Jackson did not exhaust the proposed nationwide class claims. Those charges described individualized conduct and did not support the complaint’s generalized allegations of nationwide discrimination, disparate treatment, or disparate impact.

For the individual claims, the court found that only Goins, Lopez, and Jones-Jackson had administratively exhausted portions of their discrimination allegations. It concluded that their exhausted disparate-treatment allegations were sufficiently pleaded to proceed. Goins could proceed on her allegation that she was denied a reasonable accommodation based on gender. Lopez could proceed on allegations that she was denied reasonable accommodations and given more difficult work than male colleagues. Jones-Jackson could proceed on allegations involving gender-based back pay, denial of overtime opportunities, and preferential treatment allegedly given to younger women. The other 15 named plaintiffs’ discrimination claims were eliminated for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Equal-pay claims

The court dismissed the class claims under the federal Equal Pay Act and California Equal Pay Act because the complaint did not allege facts showing that the workers at numerous UPS locations should be treated as one establishment under the statutes.

The court also dismissed Nanthavong’s equal-pay claim because the male comparator she identified had additional job responsibilities. Jones-Jackson’s claim survived because she alleged that she was paid less than a male sorter for the same work and was not reimbursed for the six-month period during which the pay difference existed. The court dismissed the Equal Pay Act and California Equal Pay Act claims as to all plaintiffs except Jones-Jackson.

Unfair-competition claim

The court allowed the California unfair-competition claim to proceed to the extent it was based on the employment-discrimination and equal-pay violations that the court found sufficiently pleaded.

Class allegations

The court granted UPS’s motion to strike the class allegations. It found that the proposed class claims had not been administratively exhausted and that the complaint did not present a coherent, nationwide theory that could be resolved for the class in one proceeding. The court also identified differences among the workers’ jobs, locations, union status, supervisory status, and alleged experiences, as well as problems with the proposed class definitions.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part UPS’s motion to dismiss. It granted UPS’s motion to strike the class allegations. The case was allowed to proceed only on the specified claims of Goins, Lopez, and Jones-Jackson, including Jones-Jackson’s federal and California equal-pay claims and the related unfair-competition claim. UPS was ordered to answer the surviving claims within 28 days of the order.