Young v. United Parcel Serv. Inc
| Decision Date | 14 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. DKC 08-2586 |
| Parties | PEGGY YOUNG v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Peggy Young, employed as a part-time morning driver by United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS"), sued the company in 2008 for allegedly discriminating against her because of her gender, race, and perceived disability. UPS has moved for summary judgment. (ECF No. 60). A number of other motions are also pending, including a motion to dismiss in part (ECF No. 69) filed by Young; two motions to seal (ECF Nos. 77, 93); a motion to compel (ECF No. 78) filed by Young; and a motion to continue (ECF No. 80) filed by Young. The issues have been fully briefed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss in part will be denied, the motion to compel will be denied, and the motion to continue will be denied. The motion for summary judgment will be granted, as will the two motions to seal.
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise stated.
UPS hired Young in 1999. In January 2002, Young started driving a delivery truck for the company. (Young Dep., 40, 65; ECF No. 76-16 ¶ 1). During the time relevant to this case-primarily the years 2006 and 2007-Young worked as a part-time, early-morning "air driver." (Young Dep., at 65, 114-15; ECF No. 76-16 ¶ 3).1 As an air driver, Young often carried lighter letters and packs, as opposed to heavier packages. (ECF No. 76-4 ¶ 1; see also ECF Nos. 76-11, at 3; 76-18, at 8). At least on some infrequent occasions, however, Young's deliveries would also include heavier boxes.2 (Young Dep., at 67; ECF Nos. 76-16 1 3; 76-18, at 8).
Because they were sometimes called upon to deliver heavier packages, air drivers like Young were required by UPS to be able to "lift, lower, push, pull, leverage and manipulate" items "weighing up to 70 pounds." Air drivers also needed to be able to "[a]ssist in moving packages weighing up to 150 pounds." (ECF No. 76-26, at 23; see also, e.g., ECF Nos. 60-5 1 10; 60-9 1 2; 60-4, at 47; 60-10, at 4-5). Young recognized that UPS "require[d] [her] to lift 70 pounds." (Young Dep., at 45, 5253). She argues that the 70-pound lifting requirement was "illusory" because packages heavier than 20 pounds were infrequent (ECF No. 76-11 ¶ 11), she was able to use a hand truck (Young Dep., at 572), and other employees could and sometimes did take heavy packages for her (e.g., ECF No. 76-15 1 5). She observes that several other UPS jobs have similar 70-pound "lifting" requirements, even though the jobs did not in actuality require heavy lifting-at least in her view. (See ECF No. 76-27, at 19 (operations clerk), 21 (loader/unloader), 23 (auto painter)).
In 2006, early-morning air drivers like Young would begin their workday at 6:30 a.m. (Young Dep., at 74). After arriving at the D.C. Building and clocking in, Young would inspect her delivery van. (Young Dep., at 74-75). Once finished with the inspection, Young would gather with other early-morning drivers to meet a shuttle that arrived from the airport bearing packages. (Young Dep., at 75). Together, the delivery drivers, including Young, "jumped up and unloaded" the packages from theshuttle van into their individual delivery vans.3 (Young Dep., at 78-80). Young would load her own van and was expected to load and deliver-on her own-any packages under 70 pounds that were not oddly shaped. (Young Dep., 81-82). Young was ultimately responsible for delivering any packages of any weights that the customers sent. (Young Dep., at 85-86; ECF Nos. 76-17, at 4; 60-10, at 2). She had no control over which packages she was given to deliver on her route. (Young Dep., 75, 80, 85-86).
After the van was loaded, Young would begin making her deliveries. (Young Dep., at 82). Young ordinarily drove a route covering Annapolis, Davidsonville, and Calvert County (Young Dep., at 68; ECF No. 76-16 ¶ 3), delivering generally lighter letters and packs by 8:30 a.m.. (Young Dep., at 67; ECF No. 76-16 11 3, 66). Sometimes, particularly on Saturdays, she would also make deliveries in Washington. (Young Dep., at 68). She would usually make five to twenty deliveries each day. (ECF No. 76-16 1 66).
After finishing her deliveries, Young would meet a full-time driver to take additional "air" packages off his vehicleand deliver them by the 8:30 a.m. deadline. (Young Dep., at 69, 73, 85). She would then return with her van to the D.C. Building. (Young Dep., at 86). Young's day at UPS would end around 9:45 a.m. (Young Dep., at 86), after which she would punch out and go to her second job at a flower delivery company. (Young Dep., at 87).
UPS is a package delivery service that employs 318 drivers at the D.C. Building, 14 of whom are part-time female drivers like Young. (Brien Dep., Ex. 1). Many of these employees, including Young (Young Dep., at 105), were covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"). Young's arguments implicate many provisions of the CBA, in addition to certain other policies and procedures at UPS.4
Under Article 14, Section 2 of the CBA, UPS must give temporary work assignments to CBA-covered employees who are unable to perform their regular jobs because of on-the-job injuries. (ECF Nos. 60-5 1 3; 60-7, at 2-3). These temporary assignments are generally limited to 30 days and are meant to help return the employee to regular work as soon as possible.
(ECF Nos. 60-5 1 3; 60-7, at 2-4). Unless an employee suffers
an on-the-job injury, the stated policy of UPS is to permit light-duty accommodations only where "an employee has a qualifying disability within the meaning of the ADA which prevents him/her from being able to perform some aspect of his/her job." (ECF No. 60-5 ¶¶ 4-5; see also ECF No. 60-7, at 4). Thus, UPS's policy is that an employee who is unable to perform an essential function of the job would be required to take a leave of absence (if the inability stemmed from something off-the-job). (ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 6).
UPS's general policy is to treat pregnancy just like any other off-the-job injury or condition. (See, e.g., No. 60-4, at 51 (); cf. 85-3 ¶ 3). Thus, "regnant
employees were permitted to continue working as long as they wanted to during their pregnancies, unless and until the employee presented a doctor's note or other medical certification that she had a restriction that rendered her unable to perform the essential functions of the job." (ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 7). Many delivery drivers, for instance, do in fact continue to work throughout their pregnancy. (ECF No. 60-5 1 7). Pregnant employees who are unable to perform essentialfunctions of their job are granted a leave of absence, but are ineligible for temporary work assignments or other light-duty work. (ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 7).
Young argues that UPS made exceptions to its stated policy of refusing to provide accommodations to employees who were injured off-duty. For instance, she believed one employee with cancer was given "light duty" while undergoing treatment. (ECF Nos. 76-4 ¶ 23; 76-11 ¶ 2). Young provides evidence of several other instances of accommodation for drivers and other employees dealing with injuries or other job impediments. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 76-4 ¶¶ 22-30; 76-5 ¶¶ 3-4; 76-6 ¶¶ 4-7; 76-8 ¶¶ 4-5; Pl.'s Ex. 32; 76-16 ¶¶ 33-36). Young also notes instances where other pregnant employees enjoyed accommodations. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 76-11 ¶¶ 5-7, 9; 76-16 ¶ 32).
Several of Young's cited "exceptions" involved drivers who failed a Department of Transportation ("DOT") medical exam. Drivers must pass such a medical exam every 24 months. See 49 C.F.R. § 391.45. Article 20, Section 4 of the CBA provides that, if a driver fails the exam and becomes legally prohibited from driving, but is still fit enough to perform "inside jobs, "5UPS must provide that employee with such a job. (ECF No. 76-27, at 7; see also Brien Dep., at 17-18, 93-94, 103-05, 114-15; see, e.g., ECF No. 76-21, at 3). Similar arrangements are provided for under the CBA for drivers who lose their driver's license or have been involved in a motor vehicle accident. (ECF Nos. 85-3 ¶ 3; 76-27, at 4-5, 6, 17).
Carolyn Martin, the District Occupational Health Manager for the Metro D.C. District at UPS, was the individual charged with applying the above policies in Young's region. (ECF Nos. 60-5 ¶ 1; 60-4, at 11-15; 60-6, at 15-17; Brien Dep., at 10708). In particular, Martin was responsible for:
... most issues relating to employee health and ability to work, including leaves of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act..., the administration of UPS's Program for Compliance with the [ADA], the [DOT] medical examination and qualification requirements applicable to UPS drivers, and injury prevention. [She] also was the official in the Metro D.C. District who made decisions about whether employees were able to perform the essential functions of their jobs based on restrictions imposed by physicians.
(ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 1). In determining whether an employee could perform her job, Martin would rely on the Essential Job Functions list for each employee's job. (ECF No. 60-5 1 6). Martin states that only she has the authority to grant accommodations. (ECF No. 60-5 1 8; see also Brien Dep., at 5760). According to her, she would only provide accommodations inaccordance with company policy and would put an end to any accommodation inappropriately granted by a manager or supervisor. (ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 8). Martin states that she makes accommodation decisions on her own. (ECF Nos. 60-4, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial