Foster v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc.

Background

Matthew J. Foster filed four separate actions: Foster I, Foster II, Foster III, and Foster IV. 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 Foster I originally named both entities, but a later joint stipulation dismissed United Parcel Service of America, Inc. from that action with prejudice and identified UPS Freight as Foster’s employer. The later actions named United Parcel Service of America, Inc. as the only defendant.

The defendant moved to dismiss Foster I, Foster III, and Foster IV. Foster moved for permission to file an amended complaint. The motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Lisa M. Smith, who recommended that the dismissal motion be granted in part and denied in part, that the sanctions motion be denied, and that Foster be allowed to amend his complaint. United Parcel Service of America, Inc. objected, arguing that Foster II, Foster III, and Foster IV were duplicative of Foster I.

Court’s analysis and rulings

Judge Roman reviewed the objections and found no clear error. To the extent the objections specifically challenged the magistrate judge’s proposed findings, the court also reviewed those matters independently and adopted the magistrate judge’s analysis and conclusions.

The court adopted the recommendation in its entirety and ruled that the dismissal motion 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 request to dismiss Foster II and Foster III for naming the wrong defendant or employer was granted without prejudice to Foster’s right to replead United Parcel Service of America, Inc.’s single-employer liability in Foster II and Foster IV within 60 days. The opinion states that failure to replead on time may result in outright dismissal with prejudice of Foster II and Foster III. - The request to dismiss Foster III for naming the wrong defendant and for preemption under the Labor Management Relations Act was denied. The court nevertheless deemed Foster III dismissed because its nonduplicative 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 repleaded, the court consolidated the remaining actions.

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 ordered to notify the court about the status of those claims within 21 days and every 30 days afterward.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman adopted Magistrate Judge Smith’s report and recommendation in full. The clerk was directed to terminate the specified motions and to terminate the action bearing docket number 18 Civ. 10925. The opinion contains an apparent inconsistency in describing which action could be repleaded: one sentence refers to repleading in Foster II and IV while discussing dismissal of Foster II and III. This summary reports that inconsistency rather than resolving it.