Jackson v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13634
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Jackson, a UPS employee since 1985, alleged race/sex discrimination and retaliation in promotion decisions (2004, 2005) and a 2007 retaliation claim.
- UPS used two promotion processes: Opt-In (2004–2005) requiring a completed packet, test, and panel interview; and MAPP (2006) with initial assessment, AP test, In Box exam, and panel interview.
- In 2004, Jackson’s direct manager failed to complete and return her promotion packet, so she did not advance to panel interview; Fry and Lee were promoted.
- Jackson argues she was similarly situated to Fry/Lee and should have received a promotion; she also relies on continuing violation for 2005 promotions.
- In 2007, Hall allegedly gave Jackson a failing initial-assessment score under MAPP, which Jackson claims was retaliatory for prior complaints.
- The district court granted summary judgment for UPS on all claims; Jackson appeals alleging error on several points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson was similarly situated to Fry and Lee for 2004 promotions | Jackson was a viable candidate; packet completion shows interest and comparable qualifications. | Jackson lacked a completed promotion packet and panel interview; not in the ready-now pool. | No genuine issue; not similarly situated; summary judgment upheld. |
| Whether continuing violation doctrine applies to 2005 promotion claims | Continuing violation covers multiple promotions including 2005. | Doctrine does not apply to discrete failure-to-promote actions. | Doctrine inapplicable; 2005 claims properly dismissed. |
| Whether Hall's 2007 failing score was retaliation for protected activity | Failing score was retaliatory due to 2006 grievances. | No direct evidence of retaliation; reasons for score are legitimate. | No prima facie retaliation, and even if so, nondiscriminatory reasons supported. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by striking Jackson's statement of disputed facts | Rule 56.1 submission complied with local rules. | Statement was not concise and violated Local Rule 56.1. | No abuse of discretion; district court affirmed striking. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext framework in discrimination cases)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (continuing violations not applicable to discrete acts)
- High v. Univ. of Minn., 236 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2000) (continuing violation limitations in this circuit)
- Shannon v. Ford Motor Co., 72 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 1996) (prima facie elements for failure-to-promote race/sex claim)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc standard for summary judgment in discrimination cases)
- Ottman v. City of Independence, Mo., 341 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2003) (similarity and qualification considerations for promotion cases)
- Chambers v. Wynne Sch. Dist., 909 F.2d 1214 (8th Cir. 1990) (reasonable attempts to convey interest in job acceptable for prima facie case)