Stephens v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Background

Nicholas Stephens, who was representing himself, filed a personal-injury action in Alameda County Superior Court against United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS). UPS removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship. After the court dismissed the original complaint because the basis for the personal-injury claim was unclear, Stephens filed a First Amended Complaint. He also added Liberty Mutual Insurance Company as a defendant.

Stephens alleged that he had worked for UPS for five years before an incident on March 22, 2022. According to the complaint, he filed a union grievance alleging that a supervisor performed work assigned to union members. Stephens alleged that the supervisor made threatening comments, including racial language, and then physically assaulted him. He also alleged that the defendants later made false statements or tried to mislead law enforcement and the public. He sought $10 million in damages.

The First Amended Complaint asserted nine claims: (1) a Title VII claim against UPS; (2) a National Labor Relations Act claim against UPS; (3) a claim under California Labor Code section 3203; (4) claims under the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act and the Crime Victims’ Rights Act; (5) “unfair labor practices”; (6) a claim under California Civil Code section 3281; (7) a claim under California Labor Code section 3602; (8) a claim under California Labor Code section 3709.5; and (9) a claim under 18 U.S.C. section 241. The court noted that it was unclear which defendants were the targets of the third and fourth claims and that the complaint contained no specific allegations about Liberty Mutual. The court also noted that Liberty Mutual did not appear to have been served.

Title VII claim

The court dismissed the Title VII claim for two independent reasons. First, Title VII generally requires a plaintiff to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the state counterpart and receive a right-to-sue letter before bringing the claim in court. Stephens did not allege that he had completed this process, and his opposition did not dispute that he had not done so. The court therefore granted dismissal for failure to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies, with leave to amend because Stephens stated at oral argument that he could allege exhaustion.

Second, the court held that the complaint did not state a Title VII retaliation claim. Stephens alleged that he was assaulted because he filed a union grievance about the supervisor’s performance of union-assigned work. The court explained that Title VII protects opposition to discrimination covered by Title VII and participation in a Title VII investigation or proceeding. Because Stephens’s grievance, as pleaded, concerned work-assignment rules rather than discrimination prohibited by Title VII, the court granted dismissal for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend.

National Labor Relations Act claim

The court dismissed Stephens’s National Labor Relations Act claim with leave to amend. It explained that claims involving conduct arguably protected or prohibited by sections 7 or 8 of that Act generally fall within the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board, rather than being pursued as a court claim against UPS under the Act.

The court stated that Stephens might be able to pursue a claim under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, which provides a mechanism for enforcing rights under a collective bargaining agreement. It explained that such a claim may require showing both that the employer breached the agreement and that the union breached its duty of fair representation. The court allowed Stephens to amend to allege an LMRA claim if he could satisfy the applicable legal requirements.

Other claims

The court granted dismissal of the California Labor Code section 3203 claim because section 3203 is a preliminary provision explaining how other statutes apply and does not create an independent claim for relief. The court also found that Stephens’s allegations did not otherwise show a claim under that section.

The court dismissed the claims under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act for failure to state a claim because those statutes do not provide a private right of action—that is, they do not authorize a private person to sue for damages under the provisions cited.

Although UPS did not specifically move to dismiss claims five through nine, the court reviewed them and dismissed each for failure to state a claim. The “unfair labor practices” claim did not identify a legal basis. The claims under California Civil Code section 3281 and California Labor Code section 3602 repeated statutory language without alleging actions by UPS that violated those provisions. The section 3709.5 claim did not state a legally recognizable claim. The claim under 18 U.S.C. section 241 merely repeated the language of a criminal statute, which does not provide a private right of action.

Leave to amend and Liberty Mutual

The court granted leave to amend claims one, two, five, six, and seven. For the Title VII claim, Stephens must be able to allege administrative exhaustion and an underlying discriminatory basis. For the second claim, the amendment could assert an LMRA claim if legally supportable. The court also allowed amendment of the fifth, sixth, and seventh claims if Stephens could plead viable claims under the identified provisions. An amended complaint could include a common-law personal-injury claim if Stephens intended to pursue one.

The court directed that any amended complaint clearly identify the legal basis for each claim, the defendant against whom each claim was brought, and specific facts showing a violation. If Stephens claimed that he exhausted his Title VII remedies, he was directed to attach the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission right-to-sue letter. He could not add new parties or claims without prior court permission.

Because Stephens pleaded no facts about Liberty Mutual, the claims against Liberty Mutual were dismissed without prejudice. The court stated that those claims appeared to need to be brought in a separate lawsuit.

Sanctions motion and disposition

Stephens moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, alleging that UPS made unwarranted and bad-faith objections concerning federal jurisdiction and cited fictitious case law. The court denied the motion because Stephens did not comply with Rule 11’s mandatory safe-harbor requirement. That requirement generally requires serving the sanctions motion on the opposing party at least 21 days before filing it with the court; the record showed that Stephens filed his motion three days after notifying UPS of his intent to seek sanctions.

Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted UPS’s motion to dismiss. Claims one, two, five, six, and seven were dismissed with leave to amend as described in the order. Claims three, four, eight, and nine were dismissed without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. Claims against Liberty Mutual were dismissed without prejudice. Stephens’s motion for sanctions was denied.