Sturgill v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Decision Date15 January 2008
Docket NumberNo. 07-1127.,No. 06-4042.,06-4042.,07-1127.
PartiesTodd STURGILL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellant. National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, et al., Amid on Behalf of Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., argued, Nashville, TN, Scott E. Schwieger, Nashville, TN, on the brief, for appellant.

Charles M. Kester, argued, Fayetteville, AR, for appellees.

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

LOKEN, Chief Judge.

Todd Sturgill was a full-time package car driver for United Parcel Service (UPS) at its Center in Springdale, Arkansas. UPS terminated Sturgill when he refused to complete his route on December 17, 2004, because working past sundown on a Friday would violate his beliefs as a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Sturgill commenced this action, claiming that UPS discriminated against him on account of his religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 § 2000e-2(a)(1). After a lengthy trial, the jury found that UPS violated Title VII by failing to reasonably accommodate Sturgill's religious observance or practice. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). The jury awarded Sturgill $103,722.25 in compensatory and $207,444.50 in punitive damages. The district court denied UPS's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JAML) and awarded Sturgill reinstatement, front pay to the date of reinstatement, an injunction requiring UPS "to accommodate [his] religious observation of the Sabbath in the future," and $134,838.37 in attorneys' fees and costs. UPS appeals, raising numerous issues. We conclude that, the jury was improperly instructed but the errors did not adversely affect its verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the award of compensatory damages, reinstatement, front pay, attorneys' fees, and costs. We reverse the award of punitive damages and the grant of overly-broad injunctive relief.

I. Background

We summarize the evidence at trial in the light most favorable to Sturgill. At the Springdale Center, UPS pre-loaded drivers' vehicles with packages each weekday morning. A driver's shift normally ended when all pre-loaded packages were delivered. Thus, the end of a driver's work day depended on variables such as the number of packages to be delivered, how many packages needed to be picked up, and road conditions. UPS's peak season extended from Thanksgiving to Christmas. Drivers were often required to work long days during peak season, and their options for discretionary time off were limited. Perquisites such as vacations and bidding privileges depended on a driver's seniority under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between UPS and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

In May 2004 Sturgill joined the Seventh Day Adventist Church, which forbids working between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday. Realizing that his new religion might interfere with work requirements later in the year, when the sun sets earlier in the day, Sturgill asked UPS to exempt him from work after sundown on Fridays. He suggested as possible accommodations starting early on Fridays, working Sundays through Thursdays, working longer shifts on Mondays through Thursdays and shorter shifts on Fridays, using vacation time to cover a shorter Friday workday, relief from making next-day air deliveries on Fridays, or no lunch breaks on Fridays. Consistent with established UPS procedures, the Springdale Center's manager, Scotty Patton, forwarded Sturgill's Request for Religious Accommodation to UPS's District Human Resources Manager.

Sturgill's Request was reviewed by district and regional Labor Relations and Human Resources managers. UPS's experienced District Labor Relations Manager, Walter Dickson, testified that UPS denied the Request because Sturgill's suggested year-round accommodations were inconsistent either with UPS Operations or with the CBA. Dickson testified that he explored other options with the union's business agent, and they agreed that Sturgill could eliminate the religious conflict by transferring to a UPS "combination job" that did not require work between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday. However, no such jobs were then available at Springdale, and any future combination job would be filled on the basis of seniority. UPS denied the Request in writing, cryptically explaining that the requested accommodations would have a "substantial impact [on] our operation" but also noting the union's position that Sturgill should be offered the chance to bid on other work such as a combination job as it became available. Sturgill acknowledged knowing the union's position and testified that he planned to bid on an appropriate combination job in the spring of 2005. Apparently, he would have been awarded that job based on seniority had he not been fired after the December 17, 2004, incident.

Though UPS denied Sturgill's Request for accommodation, he never had to work after sundown on any Friday before December 17. As the days shortened, when a heavy load threatened to extend Sturgill's Friday shift past sundown, his immediate supervisor, Mike Hadaway, "split" his load, moving packages to other drivers to ensure that Sturgill could finish before sundown. Hadaway testified that this type of informal relief was not guaranteed but, whenever possible, he made splits for many drivers for a variety of reasons, for example, to attend a Little League game. The CBA prohibited severely unbalanced workloads, and UPS required full-time drivers to work a full day. Thus, when Sturgill was afforded a split that caused him to work less than an eight-hour "plan day" on November 12, a divisional manager told Sturgill he would be terminated if he failed to complete his deliveries again. However, Sturgill continued to receive splits on Fridays after this November 12 incident.

By mid-afternoon on Friday, December 17, Sturgill realized that he would not be able to complete his route before sundown. He called Hadaway and asked for a split. Hadaway could not find a driver to assist and told Sturgill to call Center manager Patton. Patton warned Sturgill he would be fired if he did not deliver all of his packages that day. Sturgill delivered packages until sundown, then returned about thirty-five packages to the Springdale Center and left work. A UPS supervisor completed the deliveries after dark. Terminated for abandoning his job, Sturgill filed a grievance, claiming religious discrimination. A grievance panel of management and union members denied the grievance. This lawsuit followed.

Sturgill's primary theory at trial was that UPS, with minimal cost and without violating the CBA, could have reasonably accommodated his religious practice on December 17 by splitting his load with other drivers. Sturgill presented evidence that UPS routinely balanced loads when the vehicles were pre-loaded in the morning, and that other Springdale drivers with less seniority worked fewer hours and were given many fewer packages to deliver on December 17. There was also substantial trial testimony concerning whether Springdale Center managers had available during the peak season one or more other procedures that, with sufficient advance notice and planning, would have avoided Sturgill's religious conflict on December 17 without violating the CBA or causing undue hardship to UPS's operations. UPS and union witnesses testified that all of these potential accommodations—paid leave, vacation time, "personal holidays" or "option days," and requests for relief from overtime—would have violated the CBA or resulted in extensive overtime wages or in fundamental changes to UPS's business model. But the testimony by local Springdale drivers and managers was confused and inconsistent on these issues.

UPS also presented evidence tending to show that routinely granting Sturgill. Friday splits might require new drivers or more overtime, that drivers covering for Sturgill might be less efficient delivering his route, and that allowing Sturgill a set end time might result in other drivers filing grievances for being required to work excessive overtime. Sturgill countered with evidence tending to show that, given the enormous volume handled by Springdale drivers during peak season, relieving him of overtime work on Fridays would only negligibly increase other drivers' workloads and might reduce UPS's costs because the drivers that regularly covered Sturgill's route had less seniority and a lower hourly wage rate.

The case was submitted on two alternative theories of Title VII liability, that Sturgill was terminated because of his religion, and that the termination was caused by a failure to reasonably accommodate his religious beliefs. The jury found for UPS on the first claim, but it found for Sturgill on the accommodation claim. We agree with the district court there was ample evidence permitting a reasonable jury to find that UPS could have accommodated Sturgill's religious practice on December 17, 2004, without violating the CBA and without undue hardship to UPS operations. Therefore, JAML was properly denied. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1).

II. The Jury Instruction Issue

Title VII declares that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer "to discharge any individual ... because of such individual's ... religion." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The statute defines "religion" as including

all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's ... religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). Sturgill alleges that UPS violated its duty to reasonably accommodate his religious belief that he must abstain from work between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday. It is undisputed that Sturgill timely notified UPS of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
78 cases
  • Tussey v. ABB, Inc., Case No. 06-04305-CV-C-NKL
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • November 2, 2012
    ...expenses of the kind normally charged to clients may be shifted to defendants under a fee-shifting statute. Sturgill v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 512 F.3d 1024, 1036 (8th Cir. 2008); see also Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Ledar Transp., 2009 WL 2170086 at *2 (W.D. Mo. July 20, 200......
  • Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • September 27, 2013
    ...discriminatory conduct and failed to afford employees a clear path to report the discrimination. See, e.g., Sturgill v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 512 F.3d 1024, 1035 (8th Cir.2008) (finding punitive damages inappropriate where the evidence showed no individual or corporate malice or reckle......
  • Johnson v. Charps Welding & Fabricating, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 7, 2020
    ...2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (allowing compensation for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 ). See also Sturgill v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. , 512 F.3d 1024, 1036 (8th Cir. 2008) (recharacterizing nontaxable costs as attorney’s fees awarded under Title VII); Trustees of Const. Indus. & ......
  • Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. JBS United States, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • September 24, 2018
    ...of religious conflict is not necessary in order for an accommodation to be considered reasonable. Sturgill v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. , 512 F.3d 1024, 1031 (8th Cir. 2008) (" Ansonia did not hold, indeed did not suggest, that an accommodation, to be reasonable as a matter of law, must eli......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2016 Part V. Discrimination In Employment
    • July 27, 2016
    ...accommodation, it must accept any reasonable accommodation offered by the employee. See Sturgill v. United Parcel Service, Inc. , 512 F.3d 1024, 1031 (8th Cir. 2008); Kendall v. United Air Lines, Inc. , 494 F. Supp. 1380, 1387, 1391 (N.D. Ill. 1980) , decision supplemented, 1981 WL 27010 (N......
  • Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • August 16, 2014
    ...accommodation, it must accept any reasonable accommodation offered by the employee. See Sturgill v. United Parcel Service, Inc. , 512 F.3d 1024, 1031 (8th Cir. 2008); Kendall v. United Air Lines, Inc. , 494 F. Supp. 1380, 1387, 1391 (N.D. Ill. 1980) , decision supplemented, 1981 WL 27010 (N......
  • Discrimination Based on National Origin, Religion, and Other Grounds
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2017 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • August 19, 2017
    ...accommodation, it must accept any reasonable accommodation offered by the employee. See Sturgill v. United Parcel Service, Inc. , 512 F.3d 1024, 1031 (8th Cir. 2008); Kendall v. United Air Lines, Inc. , 494 F. Supp. 1380, 1387, 1391 (N.D. Ill. 1980) , decision supplemented, 1981 WL 27010 (N......
  • Discrimination based on national origin, religion, and other grounds
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • May 5, 2018
    ...accommodation, it must accept any reasonable accommodation offered by the employee. See Sturgill v. United Parcel Service, Inc. , 512 F.3d 1024, 1031 (8th Cir. 2008); Kendall v. United Air Lines, Inc. , 494 F. Supp. 1380, 1387, 1391 (N.D. Ill. 1980) , decision supplemented, 1981 WL 27010 (N......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT