Devany v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Background

Greg Devany worked for United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) as an operations supervisor. He claimed that UPS terminated him because of actual or perceived alcoholism, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). UPS argued that it terminated him because he violated a last-chance agreement and an alcohol-rehabilitation agreement.

On February 22, 2017, Devany reported to work while under the influence of alcohol. A breath test later showed a blood alcohol level of .027. He entered a substance-abuse treatment program and signed an Alcohol Rehabilitation Agreement requiring him to remain alcohol-free, attend aftercare, and submit to testing. The agreement stated that failure to comply with the aftercare program would result in discharge.

After Devany used UPS’s employee dispute-resolution process, UPS offered to reinstate him if he signed a Last Chance Agreement. That agreement required him to comply with his substance-abuse program and aftercare requirements and warned that violations could lead to termination. Devany returned to work in June 2017. He was required to attend one counseling session per week for six weeks, but he attended only one session. He said he had difficulty finding providers who accepted his insurance and tried to schedule additional sessions, but it was undisputed that he did not tell UPS about his scheduling difficulties before his termination. After a case manager informed UPS that Devany had not completed the required sessions, UPS terminated him on November 2, 2017.

ADA and NYSHRL claims

The court applied the three-step framework used for disability-discrimination claims: the employee must first present an initial case of discrimination; the employer must then identify a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason; and the employee must provide evidence that the stated reason was a pretext, or cover for discrimination.

For the ADA claim, the court concluded that Devany had not shown that his alcoholism substantially limited a major life activity. The court relied on his deposition testimony and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge stating that he no longer suffered from alcoholism after completing treatment. The court also considered whether UPS regarded him as disabled. It found that Devany had raised a genuine factual question on that issue based on Division Manager Thomas Francis’s knowledge of his treatment and Francis’s alleged comments and conduct after Devany returned to work.

The court nevertheless concluded that Devany had not established the required connection between his perceived disability and his termination. More than eight months passed between the disclosure of his alcoholism and the November termination, and five months passed between his return to work and termination. The court found that this timing was too distant, by itself, to support the necessary inference of discrimination.

The court continued its analysis even assuming Devany had established an initial case. It held that UPS had identified a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination: Devany’s violation of the Last Chance Agreement and Alcohol Rehabilitation Agreement. Devany had agreed to attend six aftercare sessions, attended only one, knew that failure to comply could result in termination, and was terminated after UPS learned of the noncompliance.

The court then held that Devany had not shown that UPS’s explanation was pretextual. It rejected his reliance on the initial May 2017 termination because he was quickly reinstated through the employee dispute-resolution process. It also found that Francis’s alleged remarks did not refer to alcoholism or treatment and were weak evidence of discriminatory intent. Evidence that UPS had sometimes continued working with other employees after violation notices did not show unequal treatment because Devany did not identify comparable UPS supervisors who had the same relevant characteristics, agreements, and violations but were not terminated. The court also found that the remaining alleged inconsistencies and circumstances did not support a finding of pretext.

Because the ADA and NYSHRL claims used the same relevant discrimination analysis, the court granted UPS summary judgment on both claims.

NYCHRL claim and disposition

The court explained that NYCHRL claims must be analyzed independently and under a more plaintiff-protective standard than the ADA and NYSHRL. After granting summary judgment on the federal and state claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYCHRL claim. It dismissed that claim without prejudice because deciding it would require a separate analysis and retaining it would not significantly conserve judicial resources.

The court granted UPS’s motion for summary judgment as to the ADA and NYSHRL claims, dismissed the NYCHRL claim without prejudice, directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case.