Randall v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 3:17-cv-00807-HZ

• Decision Date: 12 October 2018
• Docket Number: No. 3:17-cv-00807-HZ,3:17-cv-00807-HZ
• Parties: ROSHAWN RANDALL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

ROSHAWN RANDALL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant.

No. 3:17-cv-00807-HZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

October 12, 2018

OPINION & ORDER

Daniel Snyder

Carl Post

John Burgess

LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER

1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2400

Portland, Oregon 97205

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Calvin L. Keith

Cody M. Weston

Edward Choi

PERKINS COIE LLP

1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, Oregon 97209

Attorneys for Defendant

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

PlaintiffRoshawn Randall brings this employment action against DefendantUnited Parcel Service, Inc. for gender and race discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, gender and race discrimination and retaliation under Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.030(1)(b), whistleblower retaliation and discrimination under Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.199, and unpaid wages under Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.140.Defendant brings counterclaims for breach of contract and quantum meruit/unjust enrichment.Defendant moves for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims and its counterclaims.The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff began working for Defendant in 2006.ChoiDecl. Ex. 1(Randall Dep.)33:4-7, ECF 34-1.After various transitions and promotions, Plaintiff eventually started working in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, first as a part-time supervisor and then as an Operations Management Specialist and package car driver.Id. at 34:24-35:22.In March of 2015, Plaintiff asked Division Manager Paul Bond whether there were any open full-time supervisor positions.Id. at 48:16-49:14;ChoiDecl. Ex. 4(Bond Dep.) 25:11-26:23, ECF 34-4.When Plaintiff did not hear from Mr. Bond, Plaintiff and his wife entered a one-year lease to rent a home in Coeur d'Alene. RandallDecl. ¶¶ 9-10, ECF 41.

The Management Career Opportunities ("MCO") program is an online application process managed by Defendant's Human Resources Department for UPS employees seeking new positions within UPS.ChoiDecl. Ex. 4(Bond Dep.) 25:15-22.Through this program, Plaintiff was contacted in the summer of 2015 by Center Manager Kelly Nobles about a full-time supervisor position in The Dalles, Oregon.ChoiDecl. Ex. 3(Nobles Dep.) 7:16-8:7, ECF 34-3.The position that was available at the time was the "On-Road Supervisor" position, which was a full-time supervisor position in the The Dalles Center responsible for managing package car drivers and supervising other center employees.SnyderDecl. Ex. 3(Bond Dep.) 32:17-33:14, ECF 40-1;ChoiDecl. Ex. 3(Nobles Dep.) 35:2-13.After interviewing with Division Manager Phil Taylor and Mr. Nobles in August of 2015, Plaintiff was hired for the supervisor position in The Dalles.ChoiDecl. Ex. 3(Nobles Dep.) 10:3-11:19;ChoiDecl. Ex. 8(Taylor Dep.) 5:5-9:22, ECF 34-8;RandallDecl. ¶ 11.During his employment, he was the only African-American employee at the Center.Snyder Decl. Ex. C (Bond Dep.) 39:9-21.

Plaintiff says that he informed UPS Human Resources that he had signed a one-year lease in Coeur d'Alene and was told that the position in The Dalles was temporary or less than one year.RandallDecl. ¶ 11.Plaintiff subsequently discussed his new position with Mr. Nobles and Mr. Taylor by phone.Id.at ¶ 12;ChoiDecl. Ex. 3(Nobles Dep.) 10:22-11:7;ChoiDecl. Ex. 8(Taylor Dep.) 5:5-9:12.He informed them again that he would not be moving his family to Oregon because he had signed a one-year lease in Coeur d'Alene. RandallDecl. ¶ 12.No one told Plaintiffhe was required to move to The Dalles.Id.Allegedly, both Mr. Taylor and Mr. Nobles confirmed that this would be a short-term assignment until he could take a management position in Idaho.Id.at ¶ 16.

I.Issues with Personal Expenses

In August and September of 2015, Mr. Nobles and Mr. Taylor informed Plaintiff that lodging, meals, and a rental car would be paid for by UPS because of his MCO job classification.RandallDecl. ¶¶ 15- 17; Snyder Decl. Ex. C (Bond Dep.) 58:18-22.Plaintiff alleges he was expressly told he could use the UPS American Express card for these expenses.RandallDecl. ¶¶ 15- 17.He was also told he could use the UPS Visa "Pro Card" for driver and employee spiffsand meals.Id.at ¶ 17.Plaintiff testified that he did not receive adequate or accurate training on how to complete his expense reports.Snyder Decl. Ex. G (Randall Dep.) 115:19-116:19, ECF 40-2.

On October 1, 2015, Donald Tefft, Jr., UPS's Director of Human Resources for the Northwest District through April 1, 2016, held a meeting with Plaintiff and Mr. Taylor.ChoiDecl. Ex. 9(Tefft Dep.) 24:4-25:14, ECF 34-9.Plaintiff had not moved to The Dalles, and Mr. Tefft felt that his performance was struggling, in part because of his regular commute to and from Coeur d'Alene.Id. at 26:8-27:4.Plaintiff was told at this meeting that Defendant would no longer pay for his commuting costs and that he would need to relocate to The Dalles.Choi Decl. Ex 1 (Randall Dep.) 21:10-22:25.

In a subsequent email to Plaintiff, Mr. Nobles confirmed that Defendant was not going to cover mileage for his trips between The Dalles and Coeur d'Alene or meal and hotel expenses unless they were business expenses.GrantDecl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1, ECF 32;ChoiDecl. Ex. 3(Nobles Dep.) 83:18-84:4.Mr. Nobles emphasized that the MCO program requires self-relocation.Id.Plaintiff eventually acquired a studio apartment in Hood River, but his family remained in Coeur d'Alene. ChoiDecl. Ex. 1(Randall Dep.) 21:10-22:25;RandallDecl. ¶ 35.When his father died on October 2, Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Nobles told Plaintiffhe could put the flight and hotel for his father's funeral on the company credit card.RandallDecl. ¶ 34.

In early 2016, the new Division Manager for The Dalles—Paul Bond—received a copy of Plaintiff's expense reports for September through December 2015 related to the company-issued American Express credit card.ChoiDecl. Ex. 4(Bond Dep.) 56:20-24;GrantDecl. ¶ 3, Ex. 2;ChoiDecl. Ex. 3(Nobles Dep.) 71:12-72:24.Mr. Nobles approved Plaintiff's expense reports.ChoiDecl. Ex. 3(Nobles Dep.) 136:18-25.Mr. Nobles contends that in doing so he onlyapproved expenses so that finance could pay the amount charged and was not "agreeing to the payments that Randall made as UPS payments."Id.Mr. Bond, however, testified that it would have been Mr. Nobles' responsibility to "disallow any expense that he did not think were appropriate business expenses. . . ."Snyder Decl. Ex. C (Bond Dep.) 57:6-10.

According to the expense report, Plaintiff had charged approximately $20,000 in personal expenses—including fuel, meals, lodging expenses, dry cleaning, and birthday dinners—to the American Express card.GrantDecl. Ex. 2 at 3:9; 4:15, 25; 5:64-71, 83, 84, 89; 10:255, 264; 11:332.Human Resources asked David Brandon and Brian Coy, the Director of Security and a Security Manager respectively, to investigate Plaintiff's reports.ChoiDecl. Ex. 6(Coy Dep.) 10:10-11:20, ECF 34-6.Mr. Nobles sent another email to Plaintiff on January 8, 2016, reiterating that Plaintiff was "no longer on company expense for lodging, vehicle and meals."GrantDecl. ¶ 4, Ex. 3.On February 11, 2016, Plaintiff signed a statement that he had been "notified today by District Manager Paul Bond of expenses acquired by [himself]" and "as of February 11, 2016 all charges on [his] American Express card [would] only be for business purposes."GrantDecl. ¶ 5, Ex. 4.

On February 17, 2016, Plaintiff met with Mr. Grant (HR Operations Manager for the Northwest District), Mr. Coy, Mr. Bond and Mr. Taylor to discuss the expense reports.GrantDecl. ¶ 6.Plaintiff was instructed to highlight personal charges.Id.;ChoiDecl. Ex. 2(Grant Dep.) 74:21-75:5, ECF 34-2;ChoiDecl. Ex. 1(Randall Dep.) 94:2-16.Plaintiff signed a statement acknowledging that his use of the American Express card constituted a violation of company policy.GrantDecl. ¶ 6, Ex. 5.Plaintiff also agreed to reimburse Defendant for the personal transactions.Id.Plaintiff asserts that he completed the statement because he felt coerced and could not defend himself without risking termination.RandallDecl. ¶¶ 45-46.Defendantplaced Plaintiff on paid leave while it completed its investigation.ChoiDecl. Ex. 2(Grant Dep.) 44:16-45:15.Mr. Grant testified that this paid leave was not considered a disciplinary action.Id. at 45:10-15.

On March 15, 2016, Plaintiff attended another meeting with Mr. Grant, Mr. Tefft, and Mr. Bond.GrantDecl. ¶ 7.Mr. Tefft told Plaintiffhe was going to be disciplined for his violations of the UPS expense policy.ChoiDecl. Ex. 9(Tefft Dep.) 107:5-108:20.Plaintiff would not receive a raise that year, was not eligible to participate in the Management Incentive Program ("MIP") that year, had to turn in his company American Express card, and would be required to repay the improper personal expenses.Id.Plaintiff again signed a statement acknowledging the consequences of his actions and was permitted a second opportunity to review the expense reports and deduct purely business expenses.GrantDecl. ¶ 7, Exs. 6, 7;ChoiDecl. Ex. 2(Grant Dep.) 76:17-77:12.

Later that day, Mr. Tefft and Mr. Grant learned that Plaintiff had also used the Pro Card for personal charges, Choi Decl. (Grant Dep.) 81:12-82:11, 103:12-104:13, 105:24-107:5;ChoiDecl. Ex. 3(Nobles Dep.) 71:12-72:24, including a massage and multiple meals, ChoiDecl. Ex. 2(Grant Dep.) 104:8-13;GrantDecl. ¶ 7, Ex. 6.After adding these charges to the amount Plaintiff was to repay to UPS, Plaintiff entered a repayment plan by which a sum would be withheld from his monthly paychecks.GrantDecl. ¶ 7, Ex. 7.

On May 9, 2016, Plaintiff asked Mr. Grant to review his expense reports for January through April 2016.RandallDecl. ¶ 60.When he did not receive a response that day, he submitted them to Mr. Nobles, who told Plaintiffhe had approved the report.Id.After reviewing the...