Geisler v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Background

Daniel Geisler sued United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) over his alleged wrongful termination. The opinion states that Geisler has a legal impairment in his left eye. UPS hired him in May 2020 as a seasonal Personal Vehicle Delivery Driver and later hired him as a Package Car Driver. After UPS’s Corporate Safety determined that he was a safety hazard, UPS removed him from driving duties and directed him to obtain a federal vision exemption. The Department of Transportation rejected his application because his position did not require interstate driving. After a later meeting with UPS representatives, UPS terminated him seven days later.

Geisler asserted nine claims: disability discrimination, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in an interactive process, retaliation, meal-period violations, rest-period violations, waiting-time penalties, wrongful termination, and whistleblower retaliation. UPS removed the case from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. Geisler moved to remand, arguing that UPS had not established that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Jurisdictional Standard

For diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. Because it was not facially clear from the complaint that this threshold was met, UPS had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence—that it was more likely than not—that more than $75,000 was at stake. The court could consider evidence outside the complaint relevant to the amount in controversy when the case was removed.

Lost Wages

UPS argued that Geisler’s lost wages could be as high as $91,840 based on an hourly rate of $20.50, 40 hours per week, and 112 weeks. The court calculated higher potential amounts using the period from Geisler’s termination through a hypothetical trial one year after removal. Depending on whether lost wages were calculated from the termination date or the date UPS removed him from the road, the court estimated potential lost wages of $134,890 or $178,596. Both estimates exceeded $75,000.

Geisler submitted evidence that he began working full-time for St. Helena Appliance, Inc. in January 2022 at a rate above $20.50 per hour. The court explained that mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense. Because evaluating that defense would involve considering the merits of the case, the court did not reduce the amount in controversy based on Geisler’s alternative employment.

Other Evidence and Ruling

The court also noted Geisler’s claims for emotional-distress damages, punitive damages, waiting-time penalties, and attorney fees. In addition, Geisler had made a settlement demand of $199,192.50 and refused to stipulate that the amount in controversy was below $75,000. The court treated those facts as further support for finding that the jurisdictional threshold was met.

The court concluded that UPS met its burden to show subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity and denied Geisler’s motion to remand. The order disposed of Docket No. 16. It did not decide the merits of Geisler’s nine claims.