Case: EEOC v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.

0:00-cv-02229 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: Sept. 29, 2000

Closed Date: Dec. 13, 2004

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

The EEOC's Minneapolis district office sued United Parcel Service, Inc. on September 29, 2000 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The EEOC's complaint alleged that UPS violated Title VII when it discriminated against a class of male employees with spouses and a class of female employees, based on sex (female) by not providing for female contraceptive medication in its health plan. The parties entered into a consent decree on December 13, 2001 which stipulated that UPS would pay the complainant $1,344 in damages and $1,024 in damages to any class member defined by the consent decree who returned a settlement agreement form, modify its health plan coverage to include female contraceptive medication, and report its compliance to the EEOC annually. The consent decree also allowed UPS to exit the consent decree if more than five people in the class specified in the consent decree failed to return agreements to UPS.

Summary Authors

Aaron Weismann (6/15/2007)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

0:00-cv-02229

Docket

EEOC v. United Parcel Services, Inc.

Dec. 13, 2001

Dec. 13, 2001

Docket
18

0:00-cv-02229

Memorandum and Order [Regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss]

EEOC v. United Parcel Services, Inc.

April 16, 2001

April 16, 2001

Order/Opinion

141 F.Supp.2d 141

20

0:00-cv-02229

Consent Decree

EEOC v. United Parcel Services, Inc.

Dec. 13, 2001

Dec. 13, 2001

Settlement Agreement

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4296323/eeoc-v-united-parcel-svc/

Last updated March 30, 2024, 3:06 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT - Summons not issued. Assigned to Judge Paul A. Magnuson per 440 Civil Rights List and referred to Magistrate Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff 4pg(s) (SJH)

Sept. 29, 2000

Sept. 29, 2000

PACER
2

PETITION AND ORDER for admission pro hac vice ( Clerk Francis E. Dosal ) on behalf of defendant by Howard Shapiro. (1 pg) (MKC)

Dec. 6, 2000

Dec. 6, 2000

PACER
3

PETITION AND ORDER for admission pro hac vice ( Clerk Francis E. Dosal ) on behalf of defendant by Robert Rachal. (1 pg) (MKC)

Dec. 6, 2000

Dec. 6, 2000

PACER
4

MOTION by defendant to dismiss ( to Chief Judge Paul A. Magnuson ) . (1 pg) (MKC)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER
5

MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to dismiss. [4-1] ( 12 pgs) (MKC)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER
6

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in opposition to motion to dismiss [4-1] ( 13 pgs) (MKC)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER
7

REPLY by defendant to motion to dismiss. [4-1] ( 12 pgs) (MKC)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER
8

AFFIDAVIT of Daniel G. Wilzek regarding motion to dismiss. [4-1] ( 29 pgs) (MKC)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER
9

NOTICE by defendant of hearing for motion to dismiss ( to Chief Judge Paul A. Magnuson ) [4-1] ret at 2:30 on 2/23/01 (2 pgs) (MKC)

Jan. 8, 2001

Jan. 8, 2001

PACER
10

NOTICE OF ; pretrial conference set for 9:00 on 2/14/01 before Magistrate Judge Lebedoff. (1 pg) (MKC)

Jan. 10, 2001

Jan. 10, 2001

PACER
11

AMENDED NOTICE by defendant of setting hearing for motion to dismiss to Chief Judge Paul A. Magnuson [4-1] at 9:00 am on 3/23/01. 2 pg(s) (VEM)

Jan. 18, 2001

Jan. 18, 2001

PACER
12

RULE 26(f)REPORT. (10 pgs) (copy of signature page) (MKC)

Feb. 16, 2001

Feb. 16, 2001

PACER
13

MINUTES:( Magistrate Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff / ) re: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE (1 pgs) (MKC)

Feb. 23, 2001

Feb. 23, 2001

PACER
14

PRETRIAL ORDER ( Magistrate Judge Jonathan G. Lebedoff 2/23/01) ; amd complaint set for 5/1/01 ; discovery set for 12/1/01 ; non-dispositive motions set for 2/1/02 ; dispositive motions set for 3/1/02 ; ready for trial set for 4/1/02 . (1 pgs) (cc: counsel) (MKC) Modified on 06/26/2001

Feb. 23, 2001

Feb. 23, 2001

RECAP
15

MINUTES:( Chief Judge Paul A. Magnuson / Gail Hinricks) taking under advisement on the motion to dismiss. [4-1] (1 pgs) (MKC)

March 23, 2001

March 23, 2001

PACER
16

REQUEST by plaintiff for leave to file supplemental authority. ( to Chief Judge Paul A. Magnuson ) 2 pg(s) (VEM)

April 4, 2001

April 4, 2001

PACER
17

DECLARATION of Henry Hamilton III re motion for leave to file supplemental authority. [16-1] 9 pg(s) (VEM)

April 4, 2001

April 4, 2001

PACER
18

MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER: ( Chief Judge Paul A. Magnuson / 4/14/01) that: Defendant's motiont o dismiss is DENIED; and Plaitniff's request for file supplemental authority [16-1] [4-1] (7 pgs) (cc: all counsel) (MKC)

April 16, 2001

April 16, 2001

Clearinghouse
19

ANSWER by defendant. (7 pgs) (MKC)

May 2, 2001

May 2, 2001

PACER
20

CONSENT DECREE( Judge Paul A. Magnuson ) (20 pgs)(cc: all counsel) (MKC)

Dec. 13, 2001

Dec. 13, 2001

RECAP
21

EXHIBIT A to consent decree [20-2] (sealed) (separate) (MKC) Modified on 12/14/2001

Dec. 13, 2001

Dec. 13, 2001

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Minnesota

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

IWPR/Wage Project Consent Decree Study

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 29, 2000

Closing Date: Dec. 13, 2004

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

United Parcel Service, Inc., Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: unknown

Order Duration: 2001 - 2004

Content of Injunction:

Reporting

Issues

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Treatment

Pay / Benefits

Discrimination-basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Sex or Gender:

Female

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits