Williams et al v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Filing 46

RULING granting 32 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant, United Parcel Service, Inc., are DISMISSED with prejudice. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. The final pretrial conference set for 5/15/2018 and the jury trial set for 6/4/2018 are cancelled. All pending motions denied as moot. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 5/11/2018. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DARIN WILLIAMS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
16-450-SDD-RLB
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
ET AL.
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment1 by
Defendant, United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”). Plaintiff, Darin Williams (“Plaintiff”) filed
an Opposition2 to this motion, to which Defendant filed a Reply.3 Plaintiff responded to
the Defendant’s Reply with a Surreply.4 For the reasons which follow, the Court finds that
the Defendant’s Motion should be GRANTED.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), alleging claims of disparate treatment.5
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that UPS discriminated against him when it fired him based
on his sex, male.6
Plaintiff was hired by UPS in 1998 and remained employed there until 2016.7
During his time at UPS, Plaintiff held several positions including sorter, pre-loader,

1

Rec. Doc. 32.
Rec. Doc. 33.
3
Rec. Doc. 36.
4
Rec. Doc. 39.
5
Rec. Doc. 1, p. 4.
6
Id.
7
Rec. Doc. 32-1, p. 5; Rec. Doc. 32-2, p. 23.
2

45709 
Page 1 of 14 

JURY

package driver, and on road supervisor.8 In 2011, Plaintiff was promoted to business
manager of the Port Allen facility.9 As business manager, Plaintiff managed over 200
union employees, five full-time supervisors, and 12 part-time supervisors.10 Plaintiff was
terminated by UPS following an investigation into an unreported injury sustained by one
of Plaintiff’s subordinates. The events giving rise to the investigation and Plaintiff’s
subsequent termination form the basis of this lawsuit.
In September of 2015, UPS began an investigation into an injury sustained by Mia
Baptiste (“Baptiste”), part-time package center supervisor and office management
specialist, that was not reported according to UPS’s injured employee procedure11
(“IEP”).12 According to Baptiste, on May 15, 2015, she and on-road supervisor Chris
Wooten (“Wooten”), who is Baptiste’s supervisor, were playing with a can of compressed
air.13 Wooten sprayed the canister towards Baptiste’s leg at which point foam shot out,
landed on her, and burned her leg.14 Two days later, Baptiste went to the hospital for
treatment and was diagnosed with a second degree burn.15 On the date of the incident,
Wooten asked Baptiste several times if she would like to report the incident and she
declined.16 According to the IEP, Wooten should have reported the injury to his
supervisor-Plaintiff. Thereafter, the IEP requires full-time operations management, like

8

Rec. Doc. 32-1 p. 6; Rec. Doc. 32-2, p. 23.
Rec. Doc. 32-1, p. 7.
10
Rec. Doc. 1, p. 1.
11
See Rec. Doc. 32-9, pp. 5-32
12
Rec. Doc. 32-9, pp. 2-3, 35-36.
13
Rec. Doc. 32-4, pp. 2-3; Rec. Doc. 33-3, pp. 13-14.
14
Id.
15
Rec. Doc. 33-3, p. 13.
16
Rec. Doc. 32-4, pp 3-4.
9

45709 
Page 2 of 14 

Plaintiff, to enter the work related injury into the Safety and Health Risk Management
Information System (“SHRMIS”).17
The September investigation was initiated by area human resources manager
Wilfred Edwards (“Edwards”) after receiving information from one of his human resources
supervisors Shraya Williams (“Williams”).18 A report made by Williams to Edwards
contained information about the incident that occurred on May 15, 2015, between Baptiste
and Wooten.19 According to the Williams report, after finding out about the incident,
Plaintiff spoke to Baptiste, at which time Baptiste told Plaintiff she did not want to report
the incident, after which Plaintiff told Williams “if the injured employee does not want to
report the accident, the center is not obligated to do so.”20 The report further states that
Williams asked Baptiste for a write-up of the incident, but it was her belief that Plaintiff
instructed Baptiste not to submit such information.21 Plaintiff vehemently disputes
Williams’ account of these events however; it is undisputed that Plaintiff never reported
the injury into SHRMIS, as directed by the IEP.
According to Plaintiff, he and Williams found out about the incident at the same
time, in or around late June or early July of 2015.22 On that day, Plaintiff and Williams
were together when Plaintiff noticed a band-aid on Baptiste’s leg.23 After hearing about
the incident, Plaintiff told Baptiste that he had to fill out a report, but Baptiste did not want
to make one.24 Plaintiff then asked Williams what he should do, and Williams advised
17

Rec. Doc. 32-9, p. 11.
Rec. Doc. 32-9, pp. 2-3, 35-36.
19
Rec. Doc. 32-9, pp. 35-36.
20
Id.
21
Id.
22
Rec. Doc. 1, p. 1; Rec. Doc. 33, p. 1.
23
Rec. Doc. 1, p. 2; Rec. Doc. 33, p. 1-2.
24
Rec. Doc. 1, p. 2; Rec. Doc. 33, p. 2.
18

45709 
Page 3 of 14 

Plaintiff that he could not force Baptiste to report the injury.25 Plaintiff relied on the
information from Williams, because she was a human resources supervisor, and never
reported the incident.26 Plaintiff did not contact the District Health and Safety Manager or
District Occupational Health Supervisor to inquire what he should do, although this is the
procedure required by the IEP.
At the conclusion of the September investigation, the findings were reviewed by
Paul Witt (“Witt”), west package division manager in the mid-south district (Plaintiff’s
boss).27 After consulting with human resources director Jeff Bloedorn (“Bloedorn”), Witt
made the decision to terminate both Plaintiff and Wooten.28 Witt came to this decision as
to Wooten because he failed to report the injury, for behaving unprofessionally in causing
the injury, and for attempting to conceal the injury by paying a portion of Baptiste’s medical
expenses.29 Witt’s decision to fire Plaintiff was based on his failure to report the injury, for
his behavior during the investigation, and for prior violations of company policy.30
Thereafter, Plaintiff and Wooten invoked UPS’s employee dispute resolution
process to challenge their terminations.31 Each participated in the peer review panel
process at which they had the opportunity to present argument, evidence, and testimony

25

Rec. Doc. 1, p. 2; Rec. Doc. 33, p. 2; Rec. Doc. 32-1, pp. 46-53.
Rec. Doc. 32-1, pp. 46-53.
27
Rec. Doc. 32-5, p. 3.
28
Rec. Doc. 32-5, pp. 3-4; Rec. Doc. 32-6.
29
Rec. Doc. 32-5, p. 3. After finding out Baptiste went to the hospital, Wooten offered and did pay for some
of her medical expenses. Rec. Doc. 32-4, pp. 6-7.
30
Rec. Doc. 32-5, p. 4. Plaintiff was involved in 3 investigations for policy violations in 2015. 1) Plaintiff was
disciplined after failing to monitor discretionary spending at the Port Allen facility. Rec. Doc. 32-7, pp. 1-2;
Rec. Doc. 32-2, pp. 74-78; Rec. Doc. 32-5, pp. 1-2; Rec. Doc. 32-1, p. 27. 2) Plaintiff instructed one of his
subordinates to provide driving lessons to a potential job applicant in a UPS vehicle during work hours in
violation of UPS policy. Rec. Doc. 32-7, pp. 2, 7; Rec. Doc. 32-1, pp. 88-91. 3) The foregoing failure to
report Baptiste’s injury.
31
Rec. Doc. 32-1, pp. 62-63; Rec. Doc. 32-4, pp. 8-12.
26

45709 
Page 4 of 14 

in support of their cases.32 Each panel recommended that Wooten and Plaintiff be
reinstated, but without back pay, without a 2015 incentive award, and without a 2016
salary increase.33
Witt received the recommendations of the panels and discussed them with
Bloedorn.34 Witt chose to accept the panel’s recommendation to reinstate Wooten, but
Witt rejected the recommendation to reinstate Plaintiff.35 Witt felt that Plaintiff’s failure to
report the injury, particularly in light of his position, coupled with his failure to contact the
proper safety personnel and his repeated past policy violations warranted his
termination.36
Following his termination, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission alleging unlawful discrimination. He was issued a Notice of Right
to sue on April 6, 2016.37 Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 5, 2016.38
In its Motion, UPS argues that it has presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for terminating Plaintiff. Moreover, Defendant contends that Plaintiff has no
evidence that his termination was based on his sex.
In response, Plaintiff argues that UPS’s evolving stated reasons for his termination
support a finding of pretext. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that UPS has proffered
additional reasons for his termination that were not actually taken into account at the time
of his termination.

32

Rec. Doc. 32-2, pp. 52-54.
Rec. Doc. 32-1, p. 74; Rec. Doc. 32-4, p. 13.
34
Rec. Doc. 32-6, p. 2; Rec. Doc. 32-5, p. 4.
35
Rec, Doc, 32-5p. 4.
36
Id.
37
Rec. Doc. 32-2, pp. 85-86.
38
Rec. Doc. 1.
33

45709 
Page 5 of 14 

II.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Summary Judgment Standard
“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.”39 “When assessing whether a dispute to any material fact exists, we consider all
of the evidence in the record but refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing
the evidence.”40 A party moving for summary judgment “must ‘demonstrate the absence
of a genuine issue of material fact,’ but need not negate the elements of the nonmovant’s
case.”41 If the moving party satisfies its burden, “the non-moving party must show that
summary judgment is inappropriate by setting ‘forth specific facts showing the existence
of a genuine issue concerning every essential component of its case.’”42 However, the
non-moving party’s burden “is not satisfied with some metaphysical doubt as to the
material facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a
scintilla of evidence.”43
Notably, “[a] genuine issue of material fact exists, ‘if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’”44 All reasonable factual
inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.45 However, “[t]he Court has no

39

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398-99 (5th Cir. 2008).
41
Guerin v. Pointe Coupee Parish Nursing Home, 246 F.Supp.2d 488, 494 (M.D. La. 2003)(quoting Little
v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc)(quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323-25, (1986)).
42
Rivera v. Houston Indep. School Dist., 349 F.3d 244, 247 (5th Cir. 2003)(quoting Morris v. Covan World
Wide Moving, Inc., 144 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 1998)).
43
Willis v. Roche Biomedical Labs, Inc., 61 F.3d 313, 315 (5th Cir. 1995)(quoting Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)).
44
Pylant v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co., 497 F.3d 536, 538 (5th Cir. 2007)(quoting Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, (1986)).
45
Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985).
40

45709 
Page 6 of 14 

duty to search the record for material fact issues. Rather, the party opposing the summary
judgment is required to identify specific evidence in the record and to articulate precisely
how this evidence supports his claim.”46 “Conclusory allegations unsupported by specific
facts … will not prevent the award of summary judgment; ‘the plaintiff [can]not rest on his
allegations … to get to a jury without any “significant probative evidence tending to
support the complaint.”’”47
As is the case here, “[w]here the burden of production at trial ultimately rests on
the nonmovant, the movant must merely demonstrate an absence of evidentiary support
in the record for the nonmovant’s case. The nonmovant must then come forward with
specific facts showing that there is a genuine [dispute] for trial.”48
B. Title VII Sex Discrimination
Title VII provides in relevant part that “[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice
for an employer ... to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any
individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”49
In order to survive summary judgment in an employment discrimination case, in the
absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the plaintiff must demonstrate, pursuant to
the burden-shifting framework found in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, that: (1) he
was in a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered adverse

46

RSR Corp. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 612 F.3d 851, 857 (5th Cir. 2010).
Nat’l Ass’n of Gov’t Employees v. City Pub. Serv. Bd. of San Antonio, Tex., 40 F.3d 698, 713 (5th Cir.
1994)(quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249).
48
Lyles v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc., 871 F.3d 305, 310-11 (5th Cir. 2017)(citation and quotation
marks omitted).
49
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).
47

45709 
Page 7 of 14 

employment action; and (4) he was treated less favorably than similarly situated
employees.50 The Supreme Court noted that courts should apply this framework flexibly,
as “the facts necessarily will vary in Title VII cases.”51 Moreover, “to establish a prima
facie case, a plaintiff need only make a very minimal showing.”52
If the plaintiff can establish these elements, the burden will shift to the defendant
to show a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for the adverse employment action.53
The defendant must point to admissible evidence in the record, but the burden is one of
production, not persuasion.54 The defendant is not required to show that the employment
decision was proper, only that it was not discriminatory.55 The employer may succeed at
this stage by proving that it would have taken the same action even had it not considered
the unlawful factor.56
If the defendant satisfies its burden of production, the burden shifts back to the
plaintiff to show that any non-discriminatory purposes offered by the defendant are merely
a pretext for discrimination by presenting evidence of disparate treatment or
demonstrating that the proffered explanation is false.57 “However, a plaintiff cannot prove

50
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); see also Okoye v. Univ. of Tex. Houston Health
Sci. Ctr., 245 F.3d 507, 512 (5th Cir. 2001) (applying the McDonnell Douglas framework to Title VII claims).
51
Id. at 802 n.13; see also Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 358 (recognizing that the importance of
McDonnell Douglas lies “not in its specification of the discrete elements of proof there required, but in its
recognition of the general principle that any Title VII plaintiff must carry the initial burden of offering evidence
adequate to create an inference that an employment decision was based on a discrimination criterion illegal
under the [Civil Rights] Act”); Barnes, 778 F.2d at 1099 (“The McDonnell Douglas rule was intended to be
a flexible one.”).
52
Nichols v. Loral Vought Sys. Corp., 81 F.3d 38, 41 (5th Cir. 1996).
53
Id.
54
Russell v. McKinney Hosp. Venture, 235 F.3d 219, 222 (5th Cir. 2000).
55
LeMaire v. La. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383, 390 (5th Cir. 2007); see also Perez v. Region 20
Educ. Serv. Ctr., 307 F.3d 318, 325 (5th Cir. 2002); Mayberry v. Vought Aircraft Co., 55 F.3d 1086, 1091
(5th Cir. 1995) (“The question is not whether an employer made an erroneous decision; it is whether the
decision was made with discriminatory motive.”).
56
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).
57
Id.

45709 
Page 8 of 14 

that an employer's proffered reason is pretextual merely by disputing the correctness of
the employer's decision.”58 “[I]n conducting a pretext analysis, we do not engage in
second-guessing of an employer's business decisions. Title VII does not require
employers to make correct decisions, only nondiscriminatory decisions.”59
C. Plaintiff’s Prima Facie Case
Neither Plaintiff nor UPS discuss the elements of Plaintiff’s burden of establishing
a prima facie case of discrimination at length in their Memoranda to the Court. While UPS
does not concede that Plaintiff has established a prima facie case,60 it is well established
that Plaintiff bears this burden at trial.61 If Plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case,
then no inference of discrimination arises, and the burden shifting analysis of McDonnell
Douglas ends. Without deciding whether Plaintiff has established the first three elements
of his prima facie case, the Court analyzes whether Plaintiff’s comparators are similarly
situated in accordance with Fifth Circuit precedent.
Plaintiff’s claim of sex discrimination is predicated upon allegations that he was
fired for failing to report an injury according to UPS’ IEP procedure, but similarly situated
female managers, Williams and Baptiste, were given more favorable treatment; i.e. they
were not disciplined at all. Plaintiff has not provided any summary judgment evidence to
show that Williams and Baptiste were similarly situated.
The Fifth Circuit has considered whether one employee is similar to another on
many occasions and has given guidance on certain factors to consider in making such a

58

Burton v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 584 Fed.Appx. 256, 257 (5th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
Id. at 258.
60
Rec. Doc. 32-10, p. 10.
61
See Lyles, 871 F.3d 305, 310-11 (5th Cir. 2017).
59

45709 
Page 9 of 14 

finding. In Lee v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.,62 the Fifth Circuit provided the following
guidance on similarly situated comparators:
Employees with different supervisors, who work for different divisions of a
company or who were the subject of adverse employment actions too
remote in time from that taken against the plaintiff generally will not be
deemed similarly situated. Likewise, employees who have different work
responsibilities or who are subjected to adverse employment action for
dissimilar violations are not similarly situated. This is because we require
that an employee who proffers a fellow employee as a comparator
demonstrate that the employment actions at issue were taken “under nearly
identical circumstances.” The employment actions being compared will be
deemed to have been taken under nearly identical circumstances when the
employees being compared held the same job or responsibilities, shared
the same supervisor or had their employment status determined by the
same person, and have essentially comparable violation histories. And,
critically, the plaintiff's conduct that drew the adverse employment decision
must have been “nearly identical” to that of the proffered comparator who
allegedly drew dissimilar employment decisions. If the “difference between
the plaintiff's conduct and that of those alleged to be similarly situated
accounts for the difference in treatment received from the employer,” the
employees are not similarly situated for the purposes of an employment
discrimination analysis.63

Here, the record evidence reflects that Plaintiff, Baptiste, and Williams are not
similarly situated. At the outset, as a human resources supervisor, Williams does not have
the same supervisor as Plaintiff and works for a different division of UPS altogether.
Moreover, Witt, the person who made the decision to terminate Plaintiff, did not have the
authority to administer discipline to Williams because she is a human resources
employee.64

As for Baptiste, Plaintiff is the supervisor of her supervisor (Wooten).

Accordingly, they all have different supervisors and do not have similar work
responsibilities. Finally, the record reflects that both Baptiste and Williams ultimately

62

574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009).
Id. at 259-60 (internal citations omitted).
64
Rec. Doc. 32-5, p. 4.
63

45709 
Page 10 of 14 

reported the accident to a supervisor; Baptiste to Wooten and Williams to Edwards,
whereas Plaintiff maintains that he relied on the advice of Williams and never reported
the injury. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish the
fourth element of a prima facie case, i.e., to show that he was treated less favorably than
similarly situated members outside of his protected class. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed
to present evidence of a disputed material fact that would defeat summary judgment.
D. Employer’s Non-Discriminatory Reason Merely Pretext
Even if Plaintiff could establish a prima facie case, and even under the best
rendering of the evidence in his favor, he cannot prevail under Title VII on the basis of
sex discrimination. When a plaintiff succeeds in establishing a prima facie case, the
burden will shift to the defendant to show a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for the
adverse employment action.65
UPS has presented sufficient summary judgment evidence of several nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating Plaintiff. Notably, Plaintiff was involved in three
investigations in 2015, including the failure to report the Baptiste injury, for failure to
adhere to UPS policies. The first incident involved Plaintiff’s failure to monitor his
subordinates’ discretionary spending at the Port Allen facility, and the second involved
Plaintiff’s instruction to train a prospective employee during business hours and in a UPS
vehicle.66 Plaintiff does not dispute that these investigations or policy violations occurred;
rather, he argues that they are irrelevant to his termination.67
Once the defendant satisfies its burden of production, the burden shifts back to the

65

Nichols, 81 F.3d 38, 41 (5th Cir. 1996).
See Rec. Docs. 32-7, 32-8.
67
Rec. Doc. 33, p. 8.
66

45709 
Page 11 of 14 

plaintiff to show that any non-discriminatory purposes offered by the defendant are merely
a pretext for discrimination by presenting evidence of disparate treatment or
demonstrating that the proffered explanation is false.68 Plaintiff’s only argument
concerning discrimination is that he and Wooten as males were disciplined for failing to
report Baptiste’s injury while Baptiste and Williams as females were not disciplined.
Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the proffered explanation by UPS is false because its
reasons have evolved at the litigation stage.
Plaintiff’s arguments for pretext are lacking in both substance and sufficient
evidentiary support. First, accepting as true that two male employees were disciplined
while two female employees were not, this evidence alone is not sufficient to prove pretext
for intentional discrimination.69 Plaintiff makes no attempt to explain why UPS would be
motivated to favor female employees over male employees. Additionally, Plaintiff fails to
present any evidence or make any argument regarding a past history of differential
treatment. Further, Witt ultimately decided to reinstate Wooten, a male, because he found
Wooten’s conduct to be less egregious than Plaintiff’s, he had no prior discipline, and
Wooten readily admitted to exercising poor judgment in harming Baptiste and failing to
report the injury.70 This fact alone undermines Plaintiff’s argument that UPS discriminated
against him based on his sex.
Finally, Plaintiff’s argument that UPS’ reason for termination is false relies heavily
on his own testimony that Williams’ account of the events of the Baptists injury are false.

68

Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).
See King v. W.W. Grainger Inc., 502 F. App’x. 360 (5th Cir. 2012).
70
Rec. Doc. 32-5, p. 4.
69

45709 
Page 12 of 14 

Plaintiff specifically argues that Williams lied to Witt, Greenwell,71 Edwards, and
Breedlove72 (all parties involved in the investigation of Baptiste’s unreported injury) in that
she did not tell Plaintiff he was not required to report the injury to Baptiste.73 In addition,
Plaintiff argues that UPS’ reasons for terminating him evolved from the time of his
termination to litigation because he was originally told by Witt and Edwards that he was
being terminated for failure to file an IEP procedure and fear of retaliation and
intimidation.74
Plaintiff submits no evidence other than his own subjective beliefs to support these
arguments. There is nothing in the record to show that Witt did not take Plaintiff’s prior
policy violations concerning the discretionary spending and prospective employee
training into account when determining whether to terminate Plaintiff. Similarly, Plaintiff’s
disagreement with UPS accepting Williams’ version of the events surrounding Baptiste’s
injury is not appropriate summary judgment evidence to demonstrate a genuine dispute
as to a material fact.75 Regardless of which version of the events is actually the truth, the
record reflects that an investigation was conducted, both Williams’ and Plaintiff’s versions
of the events were known to UPS, and Witt made the decision to terminate Plaintiff and,
Wooten. It is not within the Court’s province to decide which version of the facts are
correct and it does not engage in second-guessing of an employer's business decisions.

71

Kimberly Greenwell, security manager, was involved in all three investigations involving policy violations
of Plaintiff. Rec. Doc. 32-7.
72
Tim Breedlove, UPS security director, is Kimberly Greenwell’s supervisor and oversees security
investigations conducted by Greenwell and those security advisors who report to Greenwell. Rec. Doc. 328.
73
Rec. Doc. 33, p. 3.
74
Id. at p.6.
75
Notably, Plaintiff argues that a memorandum attached to Edwards’ declaration purportedly from Williams
is inadmissible hearsay. Whether the memorandum is appropriate evidence on summary judgment is
irrelevant to the Court’s analysis.

45709 
Page 13 of 14 

Plaintiff has failed to point to appropriate summary judgment evidence showing that UPS’
decision to terminate his employment was merely a pretext for discrimination.76
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment77 is

GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant, United Parcel Service, Inc., are
DISMISSED with prejudice.
Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
Therefore, the final pretrial conference set for May 15, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. is hereby
canceled.
The jury trial set for June 4, 2018 is also hereby cancelled.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on May 11, 2018.

S

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

76

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Petition alleged a claim of vicarious liability against UPS for defamatory
statements made by Shraya Williams. However, the defamation claim was dismissed for failure to state a
claim on 1/17/17. Rec. Doc. 22.
77
Rec. Doc. 32.

45709 
Page 14 of 14