Case: Hohider v. United Parcel Services, Inc.

2:04-cv-00363 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

Filed Date: 2004

Closed Date: 2010

Clearinghouse coding in progress

Case Summary

On March 10, 2004, the plaintiff, a male, alleged that his employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 12101 against United Parcel Service Incorporated in United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, equitable relief in the form of back pay and front pay (in lieu of reinstatement), attorneys' fees and costs, and sizable compensatory damages and po…

On March 10, 2004, the plaintiff, a male, alleged that his employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 12101 against United Parcel Service Incorporated in United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, equitable relief in the form of back pay and front pay (in lieu of reinstatement), attorneys' fees and costs, and sizable compensatory damages and potentially punitive damages.

Specifically, the plaintiffs challenged a de facto "100 percent healed" return-to-work policy, claiming it constituted a per se violation of the ADA's requirements relating to the making of reasonable accommodations.

On December 27, 2005, the court granted the plaintiff's motion in to consolidate the case with Branum v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 232 F.R.D. 505 (W.D. Pa. 2005), brought by an individual UPS employee making the same claims.

The parties signed a consent decree applicable to the entire class on December 22, 2008, however on September 9, 2009, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's certification of the class. The case was then remanded to the District Court.

On August 31, 2010, the parties submitted a joint stipulation of dismissal, and the case was closed. We have no further information and do not know the circumstances under which the case was dismissed.

Summary Authors

Joshua Arocho (8/3/2012)

People


Judge(s)

Conti, Joy Flowers (Pennsylvania)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Bagin, Christian (Pennsylvania)

Broggi, Donald A. (California)

Comite, Erin G. (Connecticut)

Attorney for Defendant
Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Bernstein, Dori K. (District of Columbia)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:04-cv-00363

Docket [PACER]

Hohider v. United Parcel Service

Sept. 1, 2010

Sept. 1, 2010

Docket

2:04-cv-00363

Order [Westlaw]

Hohider v. United Parcel Service

Dec. 23, 2005

Dec. 23, 2005

Order/Opinion

2005 WL 3533701

2:04-cv-00363

Order [Westlaw]

Hohider v. United Parcel Service

July 16, 2007

July 16, 2007

Order/Opinion

243 F.R.D. 147

2:04-cv-00363

Order [Westlaw]

Hohider v. United Parcel Service

July 26, 2007

July 26, 2007

Order/Opinion

243 F.R.D. 147

275

2:04-cv-00363

Amended Order Appointing Special Master

Hohider v. United Parcel Service

Aug. 26, 2008

Aug. 26, 2008

Order/Opinion
276

2:04-cv-00363

Amended Order Establishing Protocols for Special Master Investigation

Hohider v. United Parcel Service

Aug. 26, 2008

Aug. 26, 2008

Order/Opinion
284

2:04-cv-00363

Consent Order

Hohider v. United Parcel Service

Dec. 22, 2008

Dec. 22, 2008

Order/Opinion
436-1

2:04-cv-00363

Opinion of the Court

Hohider v. United Parcel Service

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

July 23, 2009

July 23, 2009

Order/Opinion

574 F.3d 169

432

2:04-cv-00363

Judgment

Hohider v. United Parcel Service

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

July 23, 2009

July 23, 2009

Order/Opinion

574 F.3d 169

444

2:04-cv-00363

Stipulation of Dismissal

Hohider v. United Parcel Service

Aug. 31, 2010

Aug. 31, 2010

Other

Docket

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Pennsylvania

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Private Employment Class Actions

Key Dates

Filing Date: 2004

Closing Date: 2010

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Employees, including those absent and receiving compensation or other benefits, since May 10, 2000, who have been absent from work because of medical reasons and UPS's alleged 100% healed policy

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

United Parcel Service Incorporated, Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Unknown

Source of Relief:

Unknown

None

Issues

General/Misc.:

Pattern or Practice

Discrimination Area:

Accommodation / Leave

Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc.)

Disparate Treatment

Pay / Benefits

Promotion

Discrimination Basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)