Smith v. United Parcel Serv.

MICHAEL P. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. and LOCAL 251OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Defendants.

C.A. No. 19-192 WES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

September 14, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM E. SMITH, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant Local 251 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13. Also before the Court is Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14. For the reasons set forth below, both Motions are GRANTED.

I. Background

Plaintiff Michael P. Smith worked for Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS" or "the Company") as a casual package driver from June 2010 to October 2013, and as a full-time package driver from October 2013 until his discharge in December 2018. Def. United Parcel Service, Inc.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. ("UPS SUF") ¶¶ 1-2, ECF No. 15. As a UPS employee, he was represented by Local 251 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("Local 251" or "the Union"), and his employment was governed by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA").¹ Id. ¶¶ 1, 3-4.

While at UPS, Smith received a copy of the Company's Workplace Violence Prevention Policy, which guarantees employees a "safe working environment, free of threats, intimidation, and physical harm," and prohibits, on a "zero tolerance" basis, "physical assaults (fights), threatening comments [and] intimidation." Id. ¶¶ 7-9. He also received the Company's Professional Conduct and Anti-Harassment Policy, which prohibits "harassment" based on "disability," including "derogatory or other inappropriate remarks, slurs, threats or jokes." Id. ¶ 11. That policy also forbids "inappropriate physical contact." Id. Violation of either policy can be punished by disciplinary action up to and including termination without warning. Id. ¶¶ 10, 12, 14, 17.

On November 30, 2018, Smith touched the head of Anthony Cipriano, a fellow UPS employee and Local 251 member, while they were taking a break at a Dunkin' Donuts in Providence, RI; Ciprianodescribed this touch as a "smack," while Smith described it as a "tap." UPS SUF ¶¶ 18-26; Local 251's Statement of Undisputed Facts in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. ("Union SUF") ¶¶ 27, 32, ECF No. 13-4. Cipriano reacted by asking Smith, "Why did you hit me?" UPS SUF ¶ 21. Smith replied, "What do you mean why did I hit you?" Id. ¶¶ 34, 36; see Brown Cert. Ex. D, Smith Dep. 13:16-22, ECF No. 15-1. On December 5, Cipriano met with UPS R.I. Metro Business Manager Andy McLean and Union Chief Steward Thomas Salvatore, reporting that Smith had mocked his deafness and "hit" him in the ear with an "open-handed smack." Union SUF ¶¶ 6-27.

Later that day, Smith met with McLean, Salvatore, UPS Division Manager Matthew Duhoski, and Union Steward Corey Levesque. UPS SUF ¶ 25. Smith said that he had merely "tapped" Cipriano. Id. ¶ 26; Union SUF ¶ 32. He also acknowledged that Cipriano had responded to the "tap" by asking, "What did you hit me for?" UPS SUF ¶ 26. Duhoski explained UPS's "zero tolerance" policy for violence and announced Smith's immediate suspension as the situation was investigated. Id. ¶ 27; Union SUF ¶ 36.

On December 7, Cipriano submitted a written statement to UPS. UPS SUF ¶ 29; Union SUF ¶ 39. The statement asserted that Smith had struck Cipriano in the ear, that Smith mocked Cipriano's hearing disability, and that Smith harangued Cipriano as a "route killer" (one whose delivery speed causes the Company to raise its expectations regarding overall driver efficiency). UPS SUF ¶ 29.

On December 10, at a meeting with Salvatore, Levesque, and UPS Human Resources Representative Lisa Mertel, Cipriano repeated his charges against Smith; the meeting was memorialized in memorandum by Mertel. Id. ¶¶ 30-32; Union SUF ¶¶ 40-42. The next day, December 11, Mertel took statements from Medeiros and Thibault in the presence of their Union representatives (Levesque, Salvatore, and Business Agent Matthew Maini). UPS SUF ¶¶ 33-36; Union ¶¶ SUF 45-46. Neither Medeiros nor Thibault saw Smith touch Cipriano, but both heard Cipriano ask, "Why did you hit me?" UPS SUF ¶¶ 34, 36. Furthermore, both heard Smith reply, "What do you mean why did I hit you?" Id. On December 12, at a meeting meant to investigate whether Smith had violated the workplace violence and professional conduct policies, Smith again admitted that "he placed his hand on Cipriano's head". Id. ¶ 37-38; Union SUF ¶ 47. At the end of the meeting, Smith was told that he was terminated. UPS SUF ¶ 40; Union SUF ¶ 49.

On December 13, UPS terminated Smith for violating the Workplace Violence Prevention Policy and the Professional Conduct and Anti-Harassment Policy, UPS SUF ¶¶ 40-41, and subsequently sent Smith an official letter of termination, citing Article 50 of the CBA. Union SUF ¶ 52.

At Smith's behest, Local 251 filed a grievance for termination without just cause. Id. ¶ 50; UPS SUF ¶ 42. Maini requested Smith's employment and disciplinary records from UPS. Union SUF¶ 51. The Local Level grievance meeting occurred on December 20. Id. ¶ 53. Smith attended, as did Maini and Salvatore for the Union and Duhoski and UPS Labor Relations Manager Glenn Steward for the Company. Id.; UPS SUF ¶ 46. At the meeting, Maini and Salvatore received Smith's records, which showed a long history of disciplinary issues.² Union SUF ¶¶ 54-57; UPS SUF ¶¶ 46-47. Among the documents was a "last chance" agreement, which Smith signed after being terminated and reinstated in 2015 for "dishonesty, overall work record and falsification of company documents." Union SUF ¶¶ 58-60; UPS SUF ¶¶ 49-50. At this meeting, Smith again admitted "tapping" Cipriano's head. Union SUF ¶ 62; UPS SUF ¶ 51. He also made previously unaired allegations concerning Cipriano's behavior: specifically, Smith claimed that Cipriano had mocked him for having a limp and that Cipriano was actively trying to steal his route. Union SUF ¶¶ 63-64; UPS SUF ¶ 52. Duhoski found Smith's claims incredible and Steward denied his grievance. UPSSUF ¶¶ 53-54. Maini told Smith and Duhoski that the Union would probably not pursue arbitration. Union SUF ¶ 67.

Maini and Salvatore subsequently briefed Matthew Taibi, who serves as Secretary-Treasurer and Principal Executive Officer of Local 251 and represents members at UPS as a Business Agent. Id. ¶¶ 2, 69-73. Taibi directed Maini to get another statement from Cipriano. Id. ¶¶ 73-75. Taibi and Maini then conferred about Smith's situation, with Taibi concluding that Smith's account was inconsistent and unbelievable, especially given his disciplinary record, whereas Cipriano's account was consistent and believable. Id. ¶¶ 76-96. Taibi therefore made the decision not to pursue arbitration, which he considered futile. Id. ¶¶ 98-99. Taibi's decision was informed by a recognition that the Union was bound to defend Cipriano's interest in a safe workplace, and that Smith's actions gave UPS just cause for immediate discharge. Id. ¶¶ 22-25, 97, 100. On January 16, 2019, at Taibi's instruction, Maini wrote Smith a letter explaining that Local 251 would not take his grievance to arbitration. Id. ¶¶ 102-04.

On April 10, 2019, Smith sued UPS and Local 251 in Rhode Island Superior Court. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1-1. Against the former he alleged breach of contract (Count I) and violation of the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act ("RICRA"), R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-112-1 (Count III); against the latter he alleged breach of the duty of fair representation (Count II) and violation of RICRA(Count IV). See id. ¶¶ 28-47. Both Defendants now move for summary judgment. Local 251's Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 13; Def. United Parcel Service, Inc.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 14. The case was removed to this Court by Defendants on April 18, 2019. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1-2.

II. Standard of Review

A court must grant a motion for summary judgment where there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). An issue is genuine if it is "sufficiently open-ended to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the issue in favor of either side." Nat'l Amusements, Inc. v. Town of Dedham, 43 F.3d 731, 735 (1st Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). An issue is material if it "has the capacity to sway the outcome of the litigation under the applicable law." Id. (citation omitted).

Initially, the movant has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issues of material fact based on "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits". Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. Serrano-Isern, 605 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2010) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Cartrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). If the movant does so, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate "with respect to each issue on which [he or she] would bear the burden of proof at trial . . . that a trier of fact could reasonably resolve the issue in [his or her] favor."Id. (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324). This burden requires the nonmovant to proffer "specific facts" of "evidentiary value". Noviello v. City of Boston, 398 F.3d 76, 84 (1st Cir. 2005). It is not enough for the nonmovant to rely on speculation and conclusory assertion. See Town of Westport v. Monsanto Co., 877 F.3d 58, 66 (1st Cir. 2017).

Evidence must be considered in the light most advantageous to the nonmovant, with "reasonable inferences" drawn in that party's favor. Noviello, 398 F.3d at 84. However, such "indulgence" is limited by the nonmovant's "obligation to support the alleged factual controversy with evidence that is neither 'conjectural nor problematic.'" Chiang v. Verizon New England, Inc., 595 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (quoting Nat'l Amusements, 43 F.3d at 735).

Finally, "any fact alleged in the movant's Statement of Undisputed Facts shall be deemed admitted...