Foster v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:18-cv-10294
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Foster v. UPS America: Judge Roman adopted the recommendation, granting dismissal in part, denying it in part, dismissing Foster III, consolidating actions, and staying discovery.
Matthew J. Foster, UPS America, and UPS Freight. The order determined how Foster’s four related employment cases would proceed, dismissed Foster III, allowed specified re-pleading, potentially affected whether some claims could be dismissed later, consolidated actions if re-pleading occurred, and stayed discovery on proposed disability claims pending administrative proceedings.
What happened
Matthew J. Foster brought four related lawsuits against UPS Freight, Inc. and/or United Parcel Service of America, Inc., alleging disability discrimination, retaliation, and other claims involving his former employment. The companies asked to dismiss some claims, and Foster asked to amend his complaint.
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. It denied dismissal of Foster II as duplicative, denied dismissal of certain claims in Foster III and IV concerning Foster’s alleged July 2018 pretextual termination, and granted dismissal in part concerning the allegedly wrong employer. Foster III was dismissed, Foster II and IV could be re-pleaded as specified, and the remaining actions were to be consolidated if that occurred. Discovery was stayed while Foster pursued administrative remedies for proposed disability claims involving events in December 2019, January 2020, and April 2020.
Judge Nelson S. Roman issued the February 8, 2022 decision and order, adopting the recommendation in full and directing Foster to report regularly on the status of his claims before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The detailed version
- Foster v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc. · No. 7:18-cv-10294
- Nelson Roman
- Feb. 8, 2022
Background
Matthew J. Foster filed four separate actions: Foster I, No. 18 Civ. 1706; Foster II, No. 18 Civ. 10294; Foster III, No. 18 Civ. 10925; and Foster IV, No. 19 Civ. 6501. The actions asserted multiple claims, including disability-based discrimination and retaliation, against UPS Freight, Inc. and/or United Parcel Service of America, Inc.
In Foster I, UPS America was dismissed with prejudice under the parties’ joint stipulation, and the parties stipulated that UPS Freight was Foster’s employer. The later actions nevertheless named UPS America as the sole defendant. The defendant moved to dismiss Foster I, Foster III, and Foster IV, and Foster moved for permission to file an amended complaint. Magistrate Judge Lisa M. Smith issued a report and recommendation on September 4, 2020, recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part, the sanctions motion be denied, and Foster’s motion to amend be granted.
Review of the Recommendation
UPS America objected to the recommendation, arguing that Foster II, Foster III, and Foster IV were duplicative of Foster I. Because the objections repeated the arguments made earlier, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety. The court also stated that, to the extent the objections were specific, it independently reviewed the relevant issues and adopted the magistrate judge’s analysis and conclusions.
Rulings
The court ruled that UPS America’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.
- The request to dismiss Foster II as duplicative of Foster I was denied in its entirety. - The requests to dismiss Foster III and Foster IV as duplicative were denied as to claims arising from allegations concerning Foster’s alleged pretextual termination in July 2018. - The portion of the motions seeking dismissal of Foster II and Foster III for naming the wrong defendant or employer was granted without prejudice to Foster’s right to re-plead UPS America’s single-employer liability in Foster II and Foster IV within 60 days. The order warned that failure to re-plead on time might result in outright dismissal with prejudice of Foster II and Foster III. - The motion to dismiss Foster III for naming the wrong defendant and for pre-emption under the Labor Management Relations Act was denied. The court nevertheless deemed Foster III dismissed because its non-duplicative claims were included in Foster’s proposed Fourth Amended Complaint in Foster I, where UPS Freight was the named defendant. - Assuming Foster II and Foster IV were properly re-pleaded, the remaining actions were consolidated.
The court also stayed discovery while Foster exhausted administrative remedies before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for proposed new disability claims against UPS Freight concerning alleged events in December 2019, January 2020, and April 2020. Foster was directed to notify the court of the status of those claims within 21 days and every 30 days afterward. The clerk was directed to terminate the action numbered 18 Civ. 10925, identified in the opinion as Foster III, and to terminate the listed motions.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.