Dive Brief:
- UPS did not illegally terminate a supervisor whom it found to have sexually harassed a female co-worker despite the plaintiff’s claims that his firing constituted age and sex discrimination, a North Carolina federal judge held Wednesday.
- The plaintiff in the case, Johnson v. UPS, Inc., alleged UPS fired him within two months of his retirement plan vesting and replaced him with a younger female worker in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and North Carolina state laws. But UPS claimed that the co-worker, whom the plaintiff accompanied during a training session, reported “an unsettling experience” to the company.
- UPS said an investigation concluded that the plaintiff violated policy by making inappropriate comments and taking the co-worker to his house during the training. The judge granted summary judgment to UPS, finding that the plaintiff had not rebutted UPS’ evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the termination.
Dive Insight:
The plaintiff ultimately was unable to overcome UPS’ investigatory findings, which concluded that he made lewd comments — such as telling the co-worker that “short shorts and UPS thong” uniforms were available for her and asking if she had ever answered her door naked — and caused further discomfort in part by taking her to his house to use the bathroom.
The plaintiff denied some of the comments while confirming others, but he nonetheless claimed that he was unlawfully terminated due to his age and the proximity of his firing to his retirement plan vesting. The judge noted, however, that UPS had offered the plaintiff a part-time position at a different location until his benefits vested and that the plaintiff declined this offer.
Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiff had not presented any direct evidence of age or sex discrimination.
“Certainly, there are disputed questions of fact,” the judge wrote. “But in light of the undisputed evidence, those disputed facts are not material. UPS is entitled to summary judgment on this claim.”
Employment law experts have previously advised employers that proper documentation and execution of internal investigations can offer protection in the event of litigation. But employers must make informed decisions about how such investigations are conducted and acted upon, one attorney wrote in a January op-ed to HR Dive.
