Rainey v. United Parcel Service, Inc. - Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Facts: Joel Rainey (“Rainey”) worked at United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) from 1977 until 2013. On a Friday in September of 2013, Rainey delivered three packages to Dialysis Clinic, Inc. of Southpoint (“DCI”). Rainey delivered the first package in the afternoon and had it signed for by the receptionist. At the time of the first delivery, Rainey could not find the two other packages. After the receptionist signed for the package, Rainey “prerecorded” the delivery of the two remaining packages and left the electronic delivery record open so that he could deliver the other packages later.
That afternoon, after DCI had closed, Rainey returned to deliver they other packages. The door to DCI was locked, so Rainey left the packages at the door. He then closed out the electronic delivery record that he had created after his first delivery. As a result, the delivery record showed that all three packages were delivered and signed for by DCI’s receptionist.
The following Monday, DCI complained to UPS about the delivery and stated that the two packages that Rainey delivered that Friday evening contained medication that required refrigeration. Since the packages were left outside over the weekend, the medication was damaged. The complaint was sent to Carlos Timmons (“Timmons”), the business manager for the UPS station where Rainey worked. Rainey told Timmons that the packages had been delivered between 3 PM and 7 PM and the receptionist had signed for them. Rainey denied signing for the packages himself and denied he left any packages at DCI’s door. Rainey also did not mention he made a second delivery to DCI. In a second interview with Timmons, Rainey stated the electronic delivery record showed a later delivery time because had not closed things out until that evening.
DCI provided security camera footage to Timmons. The footage, while blurry, appeared to show Rainey making the second delivery that evening. Timmons reviewed Rainey’s disciplinary history and noted that Rainey had previously been disciplined twice for missing deliveries and marking them “closed” or “not in.” Timmons also saw that Rainey had previously been terminated twice for dishonesty (but reinstated with reduced discipline.)
Timmons terminated Rainey for falsifying documents. Rainey subsequently filed a grievance contesting the discharge. While he acknowledged he made two deliveries and left the two packages outside of DCI’s door, he denied falsifying any documents. The grievance was denied and Rainey filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge alleging he had been terminated because of his age. (He did not claim any disability discrimination at the time.) Rainey proceeded to sue UPS under the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”) on the grounds that he was unlawfully terminated because of a disability relating to a 2008 surgery. The district court granted UPS’s motion for summary judgment and Rainey appealed.
Holding: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals began its analysis of the case with a recognition that the FCRA makes it unlawful to discharge an employee because of his age or handicap. Age discrimination claims brought under the FCRA are analyzed under the same framework of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). FCRA handicap discrimination claims are analyze under the same framework as the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
Age Discrimination Claim
To prevail on an age discrimination case under the ADEA, the employee must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his age was the “but for” cause of the employer’s adverse action. When an employee uses circumstantial evidence to establish an ADEA claim, the burden shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas is applied. The employee is therefore required to show 1) he was a member of a protected group between the age of forty and seventy; 2) he was subject to an adverse employment action; 3) a substantially younger person filled the position from which he was discharged; and 4) he was qualified to do the job from which he was discharged. If the employee can establish all four elements, the burden shifts to the employer to present evidence that its reasons for the adverse employment action were legitimate and nondiscriminatory. If the employer can meet this burden, the employee must then show the employer’s reason was pretext for discrimination.
The Court held that even if Rainey could meet his initial burden, he had failed to present any evidence that UPS’s stated reason for terminating him, dishonesty, was pretext for discrimination based upon his age. The Court was unswayed by Rainey’s argument that he should have been reinstated after he showed that DCI’s receptionist had in fact signed for the first package (thus proving he had not forged anything.) The Court pointed out that Rainey did not contest that he had lied to Timmons by denying he left packages at DCI’s door. As well, Rainey’s argument that he was terminated two months before he would have been eligible for an increase in his pension (and therefore he was terminated based upon his age) did not sway the Court. Prior caselaw had established that without more, an employee’s pension status is not enough to show age discrimination.
Disability Discrimination Claim
As a prerequisite to filing an employment discrimination claim under the FCRA, the Court pointed out that an employee must file a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Rights or EEOC within 365 days of the alleged FCRA violation. That did not occur. There was no dispute that Rainey’s EEOC charge was void of any allegation of discrimination based upon a disability. Therefore, Rainey waived his disability discrimination claim.
Judgment: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the employer on the grounds that the employee failed to show the reason he was terminated, his dishonesty, was pretext for age discrimination.
The Takeaway: This case should serve as a reminder to employees of two things. First, ensure you follow the statutory requirements when brining a claim or risk waiving that claim entirely. While that is easier said than done in many situations, in this case, Rainey’s failure to file a complaint with either the Florida Commission on Human Rights or the EEOC prohibited his disability discrimination claim from going forward.
As for the second takeaway here, and perhaps the biggest thing to remember: just because there is an adverse employment action, that alone does to mean a valid discrimination claim exists. Sure, Rainey’s termination could qualify as an adverse employment action. However, the evidence in the record established that Rainey had lied when he told his supervisor that he did not leave any packages at DCI’s door. Couple that the fact that this particular omission was seemingly intentionally left out (and Rainey had a documented history of being untruthful with his employer), it seemed to be the death knell for his age discrimination claim. Had UPS not had a history of documenting his prior untruthfulness, selectively chosen which employees to discipline in similar situations, and/or had Rainey been completely honest at the outset, his age discrimination *might* have had some basis.
Majority Opinion Judge: Per Curiam
Date: June 29, 2020
Comments
Post a Comment