Daniels v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25381

Background

Daniels, a former UPS dispatcher in Kansas City, Kansas, sued UPS alleging sex and age discrimination, plus retaliation and wage claims.
The district court granted summary judgment for UPS, ruling most claims untimely and the timely ones failing on the merits.
Daniels held a dispatch specialist position from 1984 to 2009, often working night or cover shifts; supervisory duties were limited and she was not a full-time supervisor.
A UPS policy requiring full-time supervisors to cover the twilight window was applied inconsistently, with all twilight window supervisors at James Street Station being men.
Daniels requested promotions in 2005 and 2006; she was informed those letters would expire and that follow-up would occur, but no assessments or follow-ups occurred.
In 2008 Daniels complained to HR and EEOC; by mid-2009 she retired, and in 2010 the district court granted summary judgment against her.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of failure-to-promote claim	Daniels argues accrual when promotion denied in 2005–06 or on 2008 follow-up.	UPS argues each discrete act accrues when the employee is notified of the adverse decision, requiring timely filing.	Timely filing required; claims untimely.
Applicability of Fair Pay Act to promotion claim	Daniels contends denial of training/promotion falls under compensation discrimination under the Fair Pay Act, making claims timely with each paycheck.	Fair Pay Act applies only to compensation discrimination, not promotion decisions; accrual remains under Morgan/Almond framework.	Fair Pay Act does not render failure-to-promote timely.
Morgan continuation—discrete act rule	Daniels argues Morgan was overruled by the Fair Pay Act or later doctrine.	Morgan remains controlling for discrete failure-to-promote claims; no explicit override in the Act.	Morgan remains controlling; claim untimely.
Denial of twilight-window training timeliness	Continued denial of twilight training and subsequent reassignment to night shift were ongoing discriminatory acts.	Claims are discrete acts with separate accrual; continuing violation doctrine does not apply to pattern claims here.	Denial of training untimely; continuing-violation theory not available.
Adverse action from permanent night-shift reassignment	Permanent night assignment and replacement by a younger male constituted an adverse action.	Reassignment to a different shift, without pay or classification changes, is not automatically adverse; must show material change.	No adverse employment action from reassignment.
Discriminatory job classification and wage claim	Daniels claims pay disparity for performing similar duties to supervisors; seeks Title VII/ADEA/EPA relief.	Daniels did not perform sufficiently similar duties; disparity not shown; EPA narrower standard applies if applicable.	No prima facie case of wage discrimination; EPA claim failed.
Retaliation claims and time-record warnings	Post-EEOC filing retaliatory time-record warnings and reduced communication constitute retaliation.	Evidence shows legitimate, nondiscriminatory motive and actions did not amount to adverse retaliation; not all communications were retaliatory.	Claims not established; no prima facie retaliation.
Failure to investigate internal discrimination complaint	Liberti’s failure to investigate was retaliatory.	Failure to investigate, without demonstrable harm, does not establish retaliation.	No actionable retaliation from failure to investigate.

Key Cases Cited

National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts create separate accrual periods)
Almond v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 501, 665 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2011) (Fair Pay Act accrual for compensation claims; not broad)
Noel v. Boeing Co., 622 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. 2010) (maintenance of limitations under Fair Pay Act)
Schuler v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 595 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (defining compensation claims under Fair Pay Act)
Davidson v. America Online, Inc., 337 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2003) (accrual begins at adverse action notification)
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (U.S. 2007) (discussion relied upon by Fair Pay Act framing)
White v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation standard need not affect terms/conditions)
Jones v. UPS, Inc., 502 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2007) (evidence of company policy as circumstantial proof)
Semsroth v. City of Wichita, 555 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2009) (pattern-or-practice claims generally not available to individuals)