Foster v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:18-cv-01706
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Foster v. UPS America, Judge Roman partly granted and partly denied dismissal motions, dismissed Foster III, consolidated remaining actions, and stayed discovery.
Matthew J. Foster and UPS America, UPS Freight, and the related actions Foster II, Foster III, and Foster IV. Foster received permission to replead certain claims, while discovery was stayed pending administrative proceedings.
What happened
In Foster v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc., Matthew J. Foster brought four related lawsuits against UPS Freight, Inc. and/or United Parcel Service of America, Inc., alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. A magistrate judge recommended rulings on the dismissal motions, a sanctions motion, and Foster’s request to amend his complaint.
The court adopted that recommendation. It denied the request to dismiss Foster II as duplicative, and denied dismissal of some claims in Foster III and Foster IV concerning Foster’s alleged pretextual termination in July 2018. It granted dismissal of Foster II and Foster IV based on naming the wrong defendant, but allowed Foster to replead UPS America’s single-employer liability within 60 days. It denied dismissal of Foster III based on the wrong defendant and labor-law preemption, but deemed Foster III dismissed because its remaining claims were included in Foster’s proposed amended complaint in Foster I.
Judge Roman consolidated the remaining actions if Foster II and Foster IV were properly repleaded. The court also stayed discovery while Foster pursued administrative remedies before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for proposed disability claims concerning events in December 2019, January 2020, and April 2020, and required status reports every 30 days.
The detailed version
- Foster v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc. · No. 7:18-cv-01706
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 4, 2022
Background
Matthew J. Foster filed four separate actions: Foster I, against UPS Freight, Inc.; and Foster II, Foster III, and Foster IV, against United Parcel Service of America, Inc. The opinion says the actions asserted multiple claims, including disability-based discrimination and retaliation, against Foster’s former employer or employers. In Foster I, the parties had stipulated that UPS America was dismissed with prejudice and that UPS Freight was Foster’s employer.
UPS America moved to dismiss Foster II, Foster III, and Foster IV. Foster also moved for leave to file an amended complaint. The motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Lisa M. Smith, who recommended granting the dismissal motion in part and denying it in part, denying the sanctions motion, and granting Foster leave to amend. UPS America objected, arguing that Foster II, Foster III, and Foster IV were duplicative of Foster I—that is, that they asserted claims already brought in the earlier action.
Court’s analysis and rulings
Judge Roman adopted Magistrate Judge Smith’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court found no clear error in the recommendation. To the extent UPS America made specific objections, the court also reviewed those issues independently and adopted the recommendation’s analysis and conclusions.
The court stated that UPS America’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically:
- The portion seeking dismissal of Foster II as duplicative of Foster I was denied in its entirety. - The motions 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 portions seeking dismissal of Foster II and Foster IV for naming the wrong defendant or employer were granted without prejudice to Foster’s right to replead UPS America’s single-employer liability in those actions within 60 days. The order states that failure to replead on time may result in dismissal with prejudice of Foster II and Foster IV. - The motion to dismiss Foster III for naming the wrong defendant and for preemption under the Labor Management Relations Act was denied. Nevertheless, the court 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 repleaded, the court ordered that the remaining actions be consolidated. The court also stayed discovery while Foster exhausted administrative remedies before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concerning proposed new disability claims against UPS Freight based on 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 listed motions and the action bearing Index No. 18 Civ. 10925.
Disposition
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety; granted in part and denied in part UPS America’s motion to dismiss; deemed Foster III dismissed; allowed Foster to replead certain claims in Foster II and Foster IV; provided for consolidation of the remaining actions if repleading occurred; and stayed discovery pending the specified administrative process.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.