Welch v. United Parcel Service Inc.
871 F. Supp. 2d 164
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Welch sued UPS for disability discrimination under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, plus retaliation claims.
- Welch, employed by UPS since 1987, held multiple positions, culminating in PAS in 2010 with ongoing health restrictions.
- Welch suffers from HCM, sleep apnea, bipolar disorder, RLS, hiatal hernia, and PTSD; he requested accommodations repeatedly.
- The jury found in Welch’s favor on NYSHRL/NYCHRL retaliation and defense on ADA/NYSHRL/NYCHRL discrimination; compensatory damages awarded were $200,000; punitive damages were denied.
- UPS moved post-trial for JMOL and a new trial; Welch cross-moved for new trial and fees.
- The court granted NYCHRL-related JMOL in favor of UPS, set aside NYCHRL retaliation/failure-to-accommodate verdicts, denied remittitur on emotional distress, denied injunctive relief, and denied attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NYCHRL applicability | Welch worked in NYC, NYCHRL should apply to impact. | NYCHRL not applicable to nonresidents or acts outside NYC; impact must occur in NYC. | NYCHRL claims dismissed; NYCHRL not applicable. |
| NYCHRL retaliation | Transfers to Nassau preload after protected activity show retaliation within NYC. | No NYC-based impact; evidence insufficient. | Judgment as a matter of law for NYCHRL retaliation is granted. |
| NYSHRL failure to accommodate | UPS failed to provide effective accommodations; evidence shows practical failures. | Accommodations were provided or offered; no failure to accommodate. | NYSHRL failure to accommodate claims preserved; court denies JMOL; issues unresolved? Actually court upheld some findings and denied JMOL; (summary) denial of full JMOL on failure to accommodate claims. |
| Remittitur / damages for emotional distress | Award not excessive given context and suffering. | Award excessively high; should be reduced under CPLR 5501(c). | Remittitur denied; award not materially deviant. |
Key Cases Cited
- This Is Me, Inc. v. Elizabeth Taylor, 157 F.3d 139 (2d Cir.1998) (relationship between Rule 50 and Rule 56; standards for JMOL)
- Piesco v. Koch, 12 F.3d 332 (2d Cir.1993) (renewal requirement for Rule 50(a) and preservation of JMOL grounds)
- Cruz v. Local Union No. 3 of Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 34 F.3d 1148 (2d Cir.1994) (standard for entering JMOL; complete absence of evidence)
- Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 531 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.2008) (renewal of Rule 50(a) motions and preservation requirements)
- Lore v. City of Syracuse, 670 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.2012) (renewal of Rule 50(b) when initial motion lacked explicit grounds)