Filed Date: 2004
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding in progress
[THIS SUMMARY NEEDS TO BE MERGED INTO EE-PA-203]
On November 4, 2004, an individual employee filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against his employer, United Parcel Service ("UPS"). The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, alleged disability discrimination and retaliation and asked the court for injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder following service in the Vietnam War, and contended that both supervisors and co-workers aware of his disability created a hostile work environment.
On December 7, 2004, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the class action allegation and class claims. On December 23, 2005, the court (Judge Joy Flowers Conti) denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the case, noting the possibility for class claims to develop from the plaintiff's allegations. Branum v. United Parcel Service, 232 F.R.D. 505 (W.D. Pa. 2005).
According to the PACER docket, on December 27, 2005, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to consolidate the case with Hohinder v. United Parcel Service, which had started March 10, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. This terminated the Branum case and Hohinder became the lead case against UPS.
According to the PACER docket, on October 2, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class. They sought to represent a class consisting of people who were employed by UPS at any time since May 10, 2000; who had been absent from work because of a medical impairment; who were disabled as defined under the ADA; who had attempted to return to work or continue to work at UPS or had submitted to UPS a medical release that permits the employee to work with restrictions and conditions, or had been disqualified by UPS from returning to work; and who were harmed as a result of UPS's policies, practices, and procedures that control reentry into the workplace or otherwise govern the making of reasonable accommodations under Title I of the ADA to employees in UPS's workforce. On July 16, 2007, the court (Judge Conti) issued an order granting in part the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court ordered that the class claims would consist of the 100% healed policy claim, the implementation of UPS's formal ADA compliance policy claim, and the uniform use of pretextual job description claim. However, the court denied the claims for prohibiting employees from returning to work with restrictions and using seniority rights claim, the withdrawal of accommodations, and the retaliation claim. Hohinder v. United Parcel Service, 243 F.R.D. 147 (W.D. Pa. 2007).
According to the PACER docket, on February 8, 2008, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order granting UPS's motion to stay all proceedings in the District Court. Pending appeals and other motions, the case remains ongoing.
Summary Authors
Emily Kuznick (4/14/2008)
Hohider v. UPS, Western District of Pennsylvania (2004)
Conti, Joy Flowers (Pennsylvania)
Bagin, Christian (Pennsylvania)
Broggi, Donald A. (California)
Comite, Erin G. (Connecticut)
Bernstein, Dori K. (District of Columbia)
Conti, Joy Flowers (Pennsylvania)
State / Territory: Pennsylvania
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: 2004
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Disabled people employed by UPS
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
United Parcel Service (“UPS”), Private Entity/Person
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Issues
General:
Discrimination-area:
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)
Discrimination-basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Race:
Affected Sex or Gender: