Case: Hohider v. UPS

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

Filed Date: March 10, 2004

Closed Date: 2010

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On March 22, 2001, an employee of the package-delivery company United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS") filed an individual claim of discrimination in an administrative complaint against his employer, with the Pennsylvania Human Resources Commission (PHRC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He charged UPS with unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq., alleging that UPS failed to provide him with reasonable accommodation …

On March 22, 2001, an employee of the package-delivery company United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS") filed an individual claim of discrimination in an administrative complaint against his employer, with the Pennsylvania Human Resources Commission (PHRC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He charged UPS with unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq., alleging that UPS failed to provide him with reasonable accommodation after his return from medical leave.

The PHRC dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, but the EEOC found reasonable cause. On December 10, 2003, the EEOC sent the employee a notice of right to sue after unsuccessful conciliation. The EEOC further noted that it did not plan to bring any suit against UPS on its own.

On March 10, 2004, the employee together with another employee with a similar claim against UPS filed this lawsuit against UPS in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, under the ADA and Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701. They brought this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees of UPS, alleging a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination of their employer. Represented by an Equal Justice Foundation attorney and several private counsel, the plaintiffs sought injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief.

Specifically, they claimed that 1) UPS required a 100% medical release before an employee could return to his or her last job; 2) UPS implemented an ADA compliance policy to delay or avoid providing accommodations; 3) UPS used pretextual uniform job descriptions to prevent disabled employees from taking the jobs; 4) UPS prohibited disabled employees from taking alternative jobs or using seniority rights to transfer to other jobs to accommodates their disabilities; 5) UPS withdrew accommodations previously provided to disabled employees and denied their requests for the accommodations; and 6) UPS retaliated against employees who exercised their rights under the ADA.

After the plaintiffs moved for class certification on June 29, 2004, the District Court (Judge Joy Flowers Conti) permitted limited discovery with respect to the class certification motion. While that discovery was ongoing, another employee filed a similar suit against UPS, alleging discriminatory practices in violation of the ADA and seeking class treatment of his claims on November 4, 2004. Counsel for the two plaintiffs in this case moved to consolidate the two cases, and the Court initially granted consolidation for the purpose of discovery only, and later consolidated the cases for all purposes.

In the meantime, UPS filed a motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiffs' class claims, on the ground that the class claims were not in the plaintiffs' administrative complaints. On December 23, 2005, the Court denied this motion. Hohider v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., CIV.A. 04-363, 2005 WL 3533701 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2005). The Court found that the investigation and determination of the EEOC had given enough notice to UPS's counsel of the potential for class claims.

On July 26, 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify class in part and denied the motion in part. Hohider v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 147 (W.D. Pa. 2007). The Court held that the class was certified with respect to the first three claims. The Court further limited the class claim relief to injunctive and declaratory relief. UPS appealed the decision to the 3rd Circuit, and sought a stay of proceedings in the District Court.

On December 19, 2007, the Court appointed a special master to take care of the discovery disputes. The appointment was in response to the plaintiffs' discovery motions alleging UPS's failure to properly preserve e-discovery materials for this litigation. On February 8, 2008, the 3rd Circuit ordered a stay of proceedings in the lower court pending a decision on the appeal. The parties disputed whether the stay affected the jurisdiction of the District Court to resolve the discovery issues in plaintiffs' motions. The special master suspended his duties. On July 31, 2008, after the parties fully briefed the issue, the 3rd Circuit Court determined that the stay did not extend to the plaintiffs' motions at issue. The special master resumed his duties in August 2008.

With respect to the plaintiffs' allegations, the special master filed two discovery reports and recommended that the District Court find UPS had a duty to preserve e-discovery materials. Accordingly, the Court ordered investigations, but UPS tried to delay or stop the process and refused to submit the withheld documents for in camera view. UPS filed an emergency motion to stay the proceedings of the issue, but the Court denied the motion on April 28, 2009. Hohider v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 257 F.R.D. 80 (W.D. Pa. 2009).

On July 23, 2009, the Circuit Court reversed the lower court's grant of class certification and remanded the case for further proceedings, in an opinion by Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica. Hohider v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 574 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2009). The Court reasoned that the lower court could not adjudicate plaintiff employees' claims and reach a finding of class-wide liability and relief without first inquiring into the individual employment qualification under the ADA and thus reasonable accommodation with respect to the class.

The parties started mediation and pursuing settlement. On August 31, 2010, both parties settled and jointly dismissed the case. Unfortunately, the settlement agreement is not available. This ended the case.

Summary Authors

Emma Bao (7/23/2013)

Related Cases

Branum v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Western District of Pennsylvania (2004)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4374557/parties/hohider-v-united-parcel-service-inc/


Judge(s)

Conti, Joy Flowers (Pennsylvania)

O'Connor, Sandra Day (District of Columbia)

Rendell, Marjorie O. (Pennsylvania)

Scirica, Anthony Joseph (Pennsylvania)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bagin, Christian (Pennsylvania)

Comite, Erin G. (Connecticut)

Foster, Gary D. (California)

Goldstein, Judith B. (Ohio)

Hackett, Stephanie A. (California)

Johnson, Geoffrey M. (Ohio)

Judge(s)

Conti, Joy Flowers (Pennsylvania)

O'Connor, Sandra Day (District of Columbia)

Rendell, Marjorie O. (Pennsylvania)

Scirica, Anthony Joseph (Pennsylvania)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bagin, Christian (Pennsylvania)

Comite, Erin G. (Connecticut)

Foster, Gary D. (California)

Goldstein, Judith B. (Ohio)

Hackett, Stephanie A. (California)

Johnson, Geoffrey M. (Ohio)

Kaswan, Beth A. (New York)

Laing, Anita M. (Connecticut)

Lorenzana, Luis E (California)

Noss, Walter W. (Ohio)

Scolnick, Judith (New York)

Scott, David R. (Connecticut)

Shingler, Arthur L. III (California)

Skaggs, Kimberly M. (Ohio)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Brass, Rachel (California)

Culleiton, Joseph E. (Pennsylvania)

Ensor, R. Steve (Georgia)

Gartland, Charles A. II (Georgia)

McAllister, David J. (Pennsylvania)

McHugh, Joseph P. (Pennsylvania)

Napolitano, Perry A. (Pennsylvania)

Patton, Glenn G. (Georgia)

Perry, Mark A. (District of Columbia)

Scalia, Eugene (District of Columbia)

Wood, Leslie E. (Georgia)

Other Attorney(s)

Beisner, John (District of Columbia)

Bernstein, Dori K. (District of Columbia)

Lieder, Michael D. (District of Columbia)

Seligman, Brad (California)

Shea, Robin E. (North Carolina)

Vann, Rae T. (District of Columbia)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Joyce, Jeffrey J. (Texas)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:04-cv-00363

Docket [PACER]

Sept. 1, 2010

Sept. 1, 2010

Docket
144

2:04-cv-00363

Memorandum Order

2005 WL 3533701

Dec. 23, 2005

Dec. 23, 2005

Order/Opinion
204

2:04-cv-00363

Opinion

243 F.R.D. 147

July 26, 2007

July 26, 2007

Order/Opinion
412

2:04-cv-00363

Memorandum Order

257 F.R.D. 80

April 29, 2009

April 29, 2009

Order/Opinion

07-04588

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

574 F.3d 169

July 23, 2009

July 23, 2009

Order/Opinion
444

2:04-cv-00363

Stipulation of Dismissal

Hohider v. UPS; Branum v. UPS

Aug. 31, 2010

Aug. 31, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4374557/hohider-v-united-parcel-service-inc/

Last updated Aug. 11, 2022, 3:11 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

Complaint

March 10, 2004

March 10, 2004

PACER
2

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

April 6, 2004

April 6, 2004

PACER
3

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

April 27, 2004

April 27, 2004

PACER
4

Remark

April 27, 2004

April 27, 2004

PACER
5

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

May 10, 2004

May 10, 2004

PACER
6

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

May 10, 2004

May 10, 2004

PACER
7

Motion to Dismiss

May 24, 2004

May 24, 2004

PACER
8

Brief in Support of Motion

May 24, 2004

May 24, 2004

PACER
9

Answer to Complaint

May 24, 2004

May 24, 2004

PACER
10

Order

May 28, 2004

May 28, 2004

PACER
11

Motion to Extend Time

June 4, 2004

June 4, 2004

PACER
12

Response to Motion

June 14, 2004

June 14, 2004

PACER
13

Notice

June 22, 2004

June 22, 2004

PACER
14

Motion for Leave to File

June 28, 2004

June 28, 2004

PACER
15

Motion to Bifurcate

June 29, 2004

June 29, 2004

PACER
16

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

June 29, 2004

June 29, 2004

PACER
17

Brief in Support of Motion

June 29, 2004

June 29, 2004

PACER
18

Appendix

June 29, 2004

June 29, 2004

PACER
19

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

June 30, 2004

June 30, 2004

PACER
20

Declaration

June 30, 2004

June 30, 2004

PACER
21

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

July 9, 2004

July 9, 2004

PACER
22

Response to Motion

July 14, 2004

July 14, 2004

PACER
23

Order

July 19, 2004

July 19, 2004

PACER
24

Motion for Leave to File

July 23, 2004

July 23, 2004

PACER
25

Motion Hearing

July 28, 2004

July 28, 2004

PACER
26

Transcript

Aug. 2, 2004

Aug. 2, 2004

PACER
27

Proposed Discovery Plan

Aug. 6, 2004

Aug. 6, 2004

PACER
28

Case Management Conference

Aug. 16, 2004

Aug. 16, 2004

PACER
29

Motion for Leave to File

Aug. 23, 2004

Aug. 23, 2004

PACER
30

Objections

Aug. 30, 2004

Aug. 30, 2004

PACER
31

Declaration

Aug. 30, 2004

Aug. 30, 2004

PACER
32

Order

Aug. 31, 2004

Aug. 31, 2004

PACER
33

Brief in Support - Other

Aug. 31, 2004

Aug. 31, 2004

PACER
34

Reply Brief

Sept. 7, 2004

Sept. 7, 2004

PACER
35

Declaration

Sept. 7, 2004

Sept. 7, 2004

PACER
36

Remark

Sept. 7, 2004

Sept. 7, 2004

PACER
37

Motion to Extend Time

Sept. 10, 2004

Sept. 10, 2004

PACER
38

Motion for Leave to File

Sept. 16, 2004

Sept. 16, 2004

PACER
39

Response to Motion

Sept. 17, 2004

Sept. 17, 2004

PACER
40

Response

Sept. 23, 2004

Sept. 23, 2004

PACER
41

Brief in Support - Other

Sept. 23, 2004

Sept. 23, 2004

PACER
42

Notice

Sept. 23, 2004

Sept. 23, 2004

PACER
43

Notice

Sept. 23, 2004

Sept. 23, 2004

PACER
44

Motion to Strike

Sept. 30, 2004

Sept. 30, 2004

PACER
45

Status Conference

Oct. 5, 2004

Oct. 5, 2004

PACER
46

Transcript

Oct. 20, 2004

Oct. 20, 2004

PACER
47

Brief in Support - Other

Oct. 27, 2004

Oct. 27, 2004

PACER
48

Supplement

Oct. 27, 2004

Oct. 27, 2004

PACER
49

Stipulation

Nov. 3, 2004

Nov. 3, 2004

PACER
50

Motion to Consolidate Cases

Nov. 5, 2004

Nov. 5, 2004

PACER
51

Status Conference

Nov. 10, 2004

Nov. 10, 2004

PACER
52

Motion for Summary Judgment

Nov. 17, 2004

Nov. 17, 2004

PACER
53

Appendix

Nov. 17, 2004

Nov. 17, 2004

PACER
54

Brief in Support of Motion

Nov. 17, 2004

Nov. 17, 2004

PACER
55

Concise Statement of Material Facts

Nov. 17, 2004

Nov. 17, 2004

PACER
56

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Nov. 24, 2004

Nov. 24, 2004

PACER
57

Motion to Extend Time

Nov. 24, 2004

Nov. 24, 2004

PACER
58

Transcript

Dec. 7, 2004

Dec. 7, 2004

PACER
59

Response to Motion

Dec. 7, 2004

Dec. 7, 2004

PACER
60

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Dec. 15, 2004

Dec. 15, 2004

PACER
61

Brief in Support of Motion

Dec. 15, 2004

Dec. 15, 2004

PACER
62

Exhibits in Support

Dec. 15, 2004

Dec. 15, 2004

PACER
63

Motion to Extend Time

Dec. 15, 2004

Dec. 15, 2004

PACER
65

Order

Dec. 22, 2004

Dec. 22, 2004

PACER
64

Motion to Compel

Dec. 23, 2004

Dec. 23, 2004

PACER
66

Motion to Extend Time

Dec. 30, 2004

Dec. 30, 2004

PACER
67

Motion to Extend Time

Dec. 30, 2004

Dec. 30, 2004

PACER
68

Response to Motion

Jan. 4, 2005

Jan. 4, 2005

PACER
69

Order

Jan. 10, 2005

Jan. 10, 2005

PACER
72

Appendix

Jan. 10, 2005

Jan. 10, 2005

PACER
70

Response to Motion

Jan. 11, 2005

Jan. 11, 2005

PACER
71

Response

Jan. 11, 2005

Jan. 11, 2005

PACER
73

Motion to Extend Time

Jan. 11, 2005

Jan. 11, 2005

PACER
74

Order

Jan. 13, 2005

Jan. 13, 2005

PACER
75

Brief in Opposition to Motion

Jan. 21, 2005

Jan. 21, 2005

PACER
76

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Jan. 24, 2005

Jan. 24, 2005

PACER
77

Notice

Jan. 24, 2005

Jan. 24, 2005

PACER
78

Motion Hearing

Jan. 26, 2005

Jan. 26, 2005

PACER
79

Order

Jan. 26, 2005

Jan. 26, 2005

PACER
80

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Feb. 1, 2005

Feb. 1, 2005

PACER
81

Brief in Support of Motion

Feb. 1, 2005

Feb. 1, 2005

PACER
82

Declaration

Feb. 1, 2005

Feb. 1, 2005

PACER
83

Brief in Opposition to Motion

Feb. 3, 2005

Feb. 3, 2005

PACER
84

Motion for Leave to File

Feb. 8, 2005

Feb. 8, 2005

PACER
85

Motion Hearing

Feb. 14, 2005

Feb. 14, 2005

PACER
86

Transcript

Feb. 15, 2005

Feb. 15, 2005

PACER
87

Motion Hearing

Feb. 17, 2005

Feb. 17, 2005

PACER
88

Declaration

Feb. 17, 2005

Feb. 17, 2005

PACER
92

Transcript

Feb. 17, 2005

Feb. 17, 2005

PACER
89

Transcript

Feb. 23, 2005

Feb. 23, 2005

PACER
90

Motion Hearing

Feb. 25, 2005

Feb. 25, 2005

PACER
91

Transcript

March 1, 2005

March 1, 2005

PACER
93

Motion for Leave to File

March 14, 2005

March 14, 2005

PACER
95

Notice of Appearance

March 14, 2005

March 14, 2005

PACER
96

Disclosure Statement

March 14, 2005

March 14, 2005

PACER
97

Stipulation

March 15, 2005

March 15, 2005

PACER
98

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

March 16, 2005

March 16, 2005

PACER
99

Response to Motion

April 4, 2005

April 4, 2005

PACER
100

Order

April 11, 2005

April 11, 2005

PACER
94

Brief in Support - Other

April 13, 2005

April 13, 2005

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Pennsylvania

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 10, 2004

Closing Date: 2010

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

UPS employees refused reasonable accommodation upon return from medical leave of absence.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

United Parcel Service, Inc., Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Unknown

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Private Settlement Agreement

Voluntary Dismissal

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Pattern or Practice

Retaliation

Discrimination-area:

Accommodation / Leave

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

Seniority

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Disability:

disability, unspecified