Cedric Williams v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

8th Cir. · June 29, 2020 · No. No. 19-1004

Summary

The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for UPS on claims of retaliation and discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The retaliation claim failed because the plaintiff could not show a causal link between his protected activity and demotion, as the decision-makers were unaware of the activity and the temporal gap was too long. The discrimination claim failed because the plaintiff did not demonstrate pretext; UPS offered legitimate performance-based reasons for the demotion, and the plaintiff failed to identify a similarly situated comparator outside his protected class.

Court
8th Cir.
Writing for the Court
Kobes; Erickson; Melloy
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
June 29, 2020
Docket number
No. 19-1004
Procedural posture
Appeal from grant of summary judgment
Standard of review
We review a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo. Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Cedric E. Williams v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Topics

employment discriminationretaliationsummary judgmentcivil procedure

Practice areas

Civil RightsEmployment Law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Williams's retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
  2. Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Williams's race discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Key quotations

We review a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo. (p. 4)
a causal link does not exist if decision makers were unaware of the protected activity. (p. 5)
interval of more than two months is too long to support an inference of causation. (p. 5)
The comparator must be similarly situated in all relevant respects. (p. 7)

Factual background

Cedric Williams, an African-American, was a District Labor Manager at UPS from 2004 to 2013. He had performance issues, including failure to maintain grievance logs, prepare for hearings, and communicate with supervisors. His supervisor, Richard Gough, placed him on a Management Performance Improvement Plan (MPIP) in April 2012. After Williams failed to meet MPIP goals, Gough and his supervisor Headley Chambers decided to demote Williams in January 2013. Williams's demotion did not reduce his salary but eliminated incentive opportunities. Williams had made statements in 2011 about consistency in disciplining African-American employees and gave a deposition in March 2012 in another employment discrimination case about UPS's treatment of African-American employees. Neither Gough nor Chambers knew about these activities. The demotion decision was ultimately approved by HR Director Stan Roux and District President Judy Henry, who were aware of the 2011 statements and 2012 deposition.

Procedural history

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS on Williams's retaliation and discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Williams appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…