Cedric Williams v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 963 F.3d 803

Background

Cedric Williams, an African-American, was a UPS District Labor Manager (2004–2013) responsible for representing UPS in union grievance proceedings in Arkansas.
After Richard Gough became Williams’s supervisor in 2010, Gough documented recurring performance problems: poor communication with supervisors, outdated grievance logs, late legal briefings, and inadequate case preparation.
In March–April 2012 UPS placed Williams on a Management Performance Improvement Plan (MPIP) listing four deficiencies; follow-up reports reflected continued problems.
Gough and his supervisor Chambers recommended demotion; HR director Roux and District President Judy Henry agreed and Williams was demoted on January 30, 2013 (salary unchanged but incentive opportunities lost).
Williams sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging retaliation (for 2011 comments and a March 14, 2012 deposition about treatment of Black employees) and race discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment for UPS and Williams appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retaliation under § 1981	Williams says his 2011 comments and his March 2012 deposition prompted demotion.	Decisionmakers who initiated MPIP and demotion (Gough, Chambers) did not know of the protected activity; those aware (Henry, Roux) acted much later and relied on performance problems.	Affirmed: No causal link—key decisionmakers unaware, long temporal gap, and undisputed performance-based explanation.
Race discrimination under § 1981	Demotion was racially motivated; similarly situated white employees (his successors Lewick, Holladay) were treated more favorably.	UPS proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (poor performance); proposed comparators were not similarly situated (different supervisors, timing, circumstances).	Affirmed: Williams failed to show pretext or identify proper comparators; after‑the‑fact metrics do not rebut honest belief in performance reasons.

Key Cases Cited

Gibson v. Geithner, 776 F.3d 536 (8th Cir. 2015) (de novo review of summary judgment).
Thomas v. Corwin, 483 F.3d 516 (8th Cir. 2007) (conclusory allegations without specific facts are insufficient on summary judgment).
Kim v. Nash Finch Co., 123 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 1997) (McDonnell Douglas framework applies to § 1981 retaliation).
Sayger v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 735 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir. 2013) (retaliation causation requires but‑for causation).
Trammel v. Simmons First Bank of Searcy, 345 F.3d 611 (8th Cir. 2003) (multi‑month gap weakens inference of retaliation).
Shirrell v. St. Francis Med. Ctr., 793 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2015) (protected activity not the but‑for cause where uncontroverted disciplinary reasons exist).
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (McDonnell Douglas prima facie framework for discrimination).
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (plaintiff must show employer’s stated reason is false and that discrimination was the real reason).
Johnson v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 769 F.3d 605 (8th Cir. 2014) (comparators must be similarly situated in all relevant respects).
Twymon v. Wells Fargo & Co., 462 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2006) (after‑the‑fact evidence does little to rebut that decisionmakers honestly believed stated grounds).
Jackson v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 548 F.3d 1137 (8th Cir. 2008) (no causal link where decisionmakers were unaware of protected activity).
Wagner v. Gallup, Inc., 788 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2012) (court may assume prima facie case and proceed directly to pretext inquiry).