Foster v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc.

Background

Foster brought four related actions concerning alleged disability discrimination and retaliation during his employment as a tractor-trailer driver for UPS Ground Freight, Inc. He alleged that a traumatic brain injury required reasonable accommodations, including additional time and repetitive instructions when his route changed. Foster I proceeded against UPS Ground Freight, Inc. after a stipulation identified it as his employer and dismissed United Parcel Service of America, Inc. from that action. Foster II, Foster III, and Foster IV named United Parcel Service of America, Inc. instead.

The cases involved claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York Human Rights Law, and state common law. The later actions overlapped substantially with Foster I but also included claims based on a July 2018 termination and, in the proposed amended complaint, events in December 2019, January 2020, and April 2020.

Motions to Dismiss

United Parcel Service of America, Inc. argued that Foster II, Foster III, and Foster IV were duplicative of Foster I. The recommendation rejected dismissal of Foster II as duplicative. It also recommended denying dismissal of Foster III and Foster IV as to claims based on the July 2018 events, because those events occurred after the relevant Foster I pleading and could be pursued separately. The recommendation otherwise treated overlapping claims in Foster III and Foster IV as duplicative, but concluded that the actions should not be dismissed entirely on that ground.

The recommendation found that Foster’s complaints in Foster II, Foster III, and Foster IV did not allege facts supporting liability under the single-employer doctrine. That doctrine can treat related corporations as one employer when facts support such factors as interrelated operations, centralized labor control, common management, and common ownership or financial control. The recommendation therefore granted the motions to dismiss Foster II and Foster IV for naming the wrong defendant, but without prejudice to Foster’s opportunity to re-plead United Parcel Service of America, Inc.’s single-employer liability. If he could not successfully do so, the recommendation stated that those cases should be dismissed with prejudice.

The recommendation denied the motion to dismiss Foster III for naming the wrong defendant. It also denied the argument that Foster III’s New York Human Rights Law claims were preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act. The recommendation concluded that resolving the discrimination and retaliation claims would focus on the defendants’ conduct and motivations and would not necessarily require interpreting the collective-bargaining agreement.

Motion to Amend

Foster’s motion to file a fourth amended complaint in Foster I was granted in part and denied in part. The proposed complaint could include New York Human Rights Law disability-discrimination and retaliation claims based on the factual allegations through April 2020, including the nonduplicative July 2018 claims from Foster III. It could not include the proposed Americans with Disabilities Act claims based on the December 2019, January 2020, and April 2020 events because Foster had not exhausted those claims before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The recommendation stated that Foster’s already exhausted Americans with Disabilities Act claims had to remain in Foster II and Foster IV. It recommended dismissing Foster III because its nonduplicative claims would be included in the amended Foster I complaint against UPS Ground Freight, Inc.

Consolidation and Discovery

The recommendation proposed consolidating Foster I, Foster II, and Foster IV if Foster successfully re-pleaded the single-employer theory and Foster III was dismissed. It also proposed staying discovery while Foster pursued administrative exhaustion of the newer Americans with Disabilities Act claims.

Sanctions and Disposition

United Parcel Service of America, Inc.’s sanctions motion was denied. The recommendation also denied United Parcel Service of America, Inc.’s and UPS Ground Freight, Inc.’s sanctions requests. It concluded that although filing four lawsuits was not the best procedure, the lawsuits were not entirely duplicative and the record did not establish the bad faith required for sanctions.

The motions to dismiss were recommended to be granted in part and denied in part. Because the opinion is a Report and Recommendation on the dismissal motions, it directed the parties to submit objections to Judge Nelson S. Román within the stated seventeen-day period. The text provided does not state whether Judge Román later adopted or rejected the recommendations.