Wilkins v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Background

Barry Wilkins, a Black man, had worked as a full-time package-car driver for UPS from 1998 through the time of the opinion. He alleged race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 296 of the New York State Human Rights Law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The defendants were United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (UPSA), and Christopher Valent.

Wilkins worked at UPS’s New Windsor facility and was represented by the Teamsters union. Valent, who was white, was the facility’s business manager from September 2015 to May 2017. Wilkins had no more than 27 disciplinary incidents during his preceding 17 years at UPS, but received at least 16 notices of discharge or suspension during Valent’s approximately 20-month tenure. Wilkins also filed at least eight union grievances concerning what he described as excessive discipline, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination.

The parties disputed whether Valent was responsible for all of the discipline, whether Wilkins and other minority drivers were disciplined more often than similarly situated white drivers, and what Wilkins said during the June 17, 2016 incident. Valent and another manager said Wilkins threatened to punch and cut someone’s throat. Wilkins said he was venting about what it would take to get someone’s attention, and a union steward testified that the truck engine made it difficult to hear the exact words. Wilkins also claimed Valent misrepresented the incident to police by suggesting a knife was involved. Wilkins was suspended without pay for eight weeks, but arbitration restored his job and back pay.

Rulings on Abandoned and Hostile-Work-Environment Claims

The court deemed Wilkins’s claims against UPSA abandoned because he did not respond to defendants’ argument that UPSA was never his employer. The court also deemed abandoned his Section 1981 claims and his non-hostile-work-environment race-discrimination claims under Title VII and Section 1981. Those claims were dismissed.

The court denied summary judgment on Wilkins’s Title VII hostile-work-environment claim against UPS. It held that the evidence, viewed favorably to Wilkins, could allow a reasonable jury to find that the discipline and scrutiny were sufficiently frequent and severe to create a hostile work environment and were motivated by race. The court also held that the eight-week unpaid suspension could qualify as a significant change in employment benefits, or a tangible employment action, supporting UPS’s potential liability for Valent’s conduct.

The court granted summary judgment to UPS on Wilkins’s New York Human Rights Law hostile-work-environment claim. Unlike Title VII, that state law did not make an employer automatically liable for a supervisor’s conduct. The court found insufficient evidence that UPS knowingly encouraged, accepted, or approved Valent’s alleged discrimination. The court denied summary judgment to Valent on the same state-law hostile-work-environment theory because the record indicated that Valent had authority to make personnel decisions, including terminating employees. The court also dismissed Wilkins’s state-law aiding-and-abetting claim.

Rulings on Retaliation Claims

The court granted summary judgment on Wilkins’s retaliation claim based on Valent’s June 17, 2016 call to police. The court identified two grievances that could qualify as legally protected activity: an April 2016 grievance invoking the collective bargaining agreement’s anti-discrimination provision and a June 2016 grievance concerning Valent’s reference to “whips.” But the court found insufficient evidence that the stated reason for calling police—a belief that Wilkins made a violent workplace threat—was a cover for retaliation.

The court also dismissed the retaliation claim based on Wilkins’s successful arbitration challenge to the suspension. Even assuming the arbitration challenge was protected activity, the court held that Wilkins did not show the required connection between that activity and later discipline. The court noted that continuing the same type of discipline that led to the earlier challenge did not, without more, establish retaliatory intent.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Wilkins’s Title VII hostile-work-environment claim against UPS and his New York Human Rights Law hostile-work-environment claim against Valent remained. All other claims were dismissed. The defendants’ motions to strike Wilkins’s declaration and portions of his attorney’s declaration were terminated as moot. The clerk was directed to terminate UPSA as a defendant and terminate the listed motions.