Devany v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Background

Greg Devany brought an employment-discrimination action against United Parcel Services, Inc. (“UPS”). He alleged that UPS terminated him because of his actual or perceived alcoholism, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. UPS contended that it terminated Devany for violating a “last-chance agreement,” and Devany argued that this stated reason was a pretext, meaning a false reason used to conceal discrimination.

Devany sought documents concerning: (1) three individuals who lost stock benefits because of disciplinary actions; (2) nine individuals who had received a last-chance agreement or a return-to-work agreement and were subject to discipline, reinstatement, or termination; and (3) full-time supervisors or managers in the North Atlantic District who were terminated and later reinstated from 2014 through 2017. UPS opposed the request, stating that it had already produced thousands of documents, including records about supervisors subject to employment or last-chance agreements and those referred for treatment through American Substance Abuse Professionals.

Magistrate Judge’s Discovery Order

The Court had referred the discovery dispute to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. Judge Lehrburger issued an order that “denied in part and granted in part” Devany’s application. As relevant here, he ruled that potentially relevant comparisons were supervisors who had drug- or alcohol-related offenses or had failed to comply with required treatment. He found records concerning supervisors with other types of offenses to have minimal or no relevance and ruled that Devany’s requests for those records were not proportional to the needs of the case.

Devany objected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), arguing that the discovery should include all documents that could help show that UPS’s reason for terminating him was pretextual. He contended that records of UPS’s generally lenient disciplinary practices could support his claim. UPS argued that supervisors disciplined for performance issues unrelated to drugs or alcohol were not appropriate comparators.

District Court’s Analysis

For a timely objection to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive pretrial matter, the district judge must modify or set aside the ruling if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. “Clearly erroneous” means that the reviewing court is left with a firm conviction that a mistake was made. A ruling is contrary to law if it fails to apply or misapplies relevant law or procedural rules. The opinion explains that this is a highly deferential standard and that magistrate judges have broad discretion in discovery disputes.

The Court stated that employees used to show pretext must be similarly situated to the plaintiff and must have engaged in similar misconduct. Devany did not explain how supervisors who were not accused of drug- or alcohol-related offenses or failure to follow required treatment could be similarly situated to him. The Court agreed that evidence concerning employees accused of different misconduct had little to no relevance and that producing those materials would be disproportionate to the needs of the case.

Disposition

The Court held that Devany had not met his heavy burden of showing that Judge Lehrburger’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Judge Gardephe therefore denied Devany’s objection. The opinion addresses the discovery dispute and does not decide whether Devany proved employment discrimination or whether UPS’s stated reason for terminating him was pretextual.