Foster v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-06501
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Foster v. United Parcel Service, Judge Roman adopted rulings that partly granted and partly denied dismissal motions, dismissed Foster III, consolidated actions, and stayed discovery.
Matthew J. Foster, UPS Freight, Inc., and United Parcel Service of America, Inc. were affected by the dismissal, amendment, consolidation, and discovery rulings. Foster also had to pursue specified proposed claims through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before discovery could proceed.
What happened
In Foster v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc., Matthew J. Foster brought four related cases against UPS Freight, Inc. and/or United Parcel Service of America, Inc., asserting disability-related discrimination and retaliation claims. A magistrate judge recommended rulings on the companies’ dismissal and sanctions motions and Foster’s request to amend his complaint.
The court adopted that recommendation. It granted in part and denied in part United Parcel Service of America’s motion to dismiss. The court denied dismissal of Foster II as duplicative, denied dismissal of certain claims in Foster III and IV, granted without prejudice dismissal of claims based on naming the wrong employer, and dismissed Foster III. It also granted Foster’s request to amend, denied the sanctions motion, consolidated the remaining actions if Foster properly repleaded, and stayed discovery while he pursued administrative claims before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Judge Nelson S. Roman found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s recommendation and adopted it in full. The order resolved pleading, duplication, and case-management issues; it did not determine whether Foster’s underlying discrimination or retaliation claims would ultimately succeed.
The detailed version
- Foster v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc. · No. 7:19-cv-06501
- 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. The opinion states that UPS America was dismissed from Foster I under a joint stipulation, while UPS Freight was identified as Foster’s employer in that stipulation. The later actions 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. The motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Lisa M. Smith, who issued a report and recommendation on September 4, 2020. The recommendation was to grant in part and deny in part the dismissal motion, deny the sanctions motion, and grant Foster permission to amend. UPS America objected, arguing that Foster II, III, and IV were duplicative of Foster I.
Court’s analysis
Because the objections repeated arguments made earlier, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error. It also stated that, to the extent the objections specifically challenged particular findings, it reviewed those matters independently and adopted Magistrate Judge Smith’s analysis and conclusions.
Rulings
The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. It ruled as follows:
- The defendant’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 Foster’s alleged pretextual termination in July 2018. - The portion of the dismissal motion seeking dismissal of Foster II and Foster III for naming the wrong defendant or employer was granted without prejudice to Foster’s right to replead UPS America’s single-employer liability. The order gave Foster 60 days to replead and stated that failure to do so could result in dismissal of Foster II and Foster III with prejudice. - The motion to dismiss Foster III for naming the wrong defendant and for preemption under the Labor Management Relations Act was denied. The court nevertheless stated that Foster III was deemed dismissed because its nonduplicative claims were included in Foster’s proposed Fourth Amended Complaint in Foster I, where UPS Freight was named as defendant. - Foster’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint was granted. - The sanctions motion was denied. - Assuming Foster II and Foster IV were properly repleaded, the remaining actions were consolidated.
The court also stayed discovery while Foster exhausted administrative remedies before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for proposed new Americans with Disabilities Act claims against UPS Freight concerning alleged events in December 2019, January 2020, and April 2020. Foster was directed to report the status of those claims within 21 days and every 30 days afterward. The clerk was directed to terminate the action designated Foster III, No. 18 Civ. 10925, and to terminate the listed motions.
Effect of the order
The order did not decide the ultimate merits of Foster’s disability-discrimination or retaliation claims. It governed which claims and cases could proceed, whether Foster could amend his pleadings, consolidation, and discovery. The classification is procedural because the order primarily ruled on dismissal and case-management issues rather than deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.