Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DANIELS v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE

December 1, 2004.

MARK L. DANIELS, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: RONALD GUZMAN, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Mark Daniels filed a one-count complaint against United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS"), alleging that it discharged him because of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. UPS has moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

Facts*fn1

  In May 2001, Mark Daniels, an African-American, worked for UPS as a plant engineering mechanic ("PE"). (Def.'s LR 56.1(a) Stmt. ¶¶ 1, 5.) Daniels worked primarily at UPS' Metro Chicago District in Chicago, Illinois (Id. ¶ 5.)

  UPS also has a facility in Hodgkins, Illinois known as the Chicago Area Consolidated Hub or CACH. (Id. ¶ 9.) If CACH needs PEs for weekend work, it asks other UPS districts to post overtime sign-up sheets in their facilities. (Id. ¶ 10.) PEs who want overtime sign up and CACH is told whom to expect. (Id.)

  A sign-up sheet was posted at the Metro facility seeking PEs to work at CACH on Sunday, May 27, 2001. (Id. ¶ 11.) Daniels did not sign up. (Id.) Nonetheless, he says he worked an eight-hour, double-time shift at CACH on that date. (Id. ¶ 13.)

  In June 2001, Daniels asked a UPS supervisor why he had not been paid for his May 27, 2001 overtime work. (Id. ¶ 14.) Daniels' time card for that date had two time punches that read "May 27, 8:15" and "May 27, 17:17." (Id. ¶¶ 17, 20.) Those time punches were in the format used by the time clocks in the Metro facility. (Id. ¶ 23.) The CACH time clocks use a "year-month-date-time" format. (Id.)

  On June 21, 2001, PE Manager Bill Beach and Security Supervisor Dave Nolimal questioned Daniels about his claim that he worked on May 27, 2001. (Id. ¶ 28.) Daniels submitted a written statement in which he said, among other things, that he: arrived at the CACH guard shack between 6:45 and 8:15 a.m., was admitted to the building by the guard, went to the PE office and received his work assignment, returned to the PE office at the end of the day and put his time card in the time card rack, and left CACH through the guard shack between 5:10 and 5:40 p.m. (Id. ¶ 29; id., Ex. K, Nolimal Dep., Ex. 1, Daniels Stmt.)

  In May 2001, there was only one guard shack, number two, through which employees without CACH IDs could enter the facility on weekends. (Id. ¶ 31;*fn2 id., Ex. K, Nolimal Dep., Ex. 1, Harris Stmt.) Daniels did not have a CACH ID. (Id. ¶ 32.) PE Manager Neal reviewed the security videotapes taken at guard shack number two during the times that Daniels said he entered and exited, but he did not see Daniels. (Id. ¶¶ 44-45.)

  Neal also reviewed the videotapes taken of the door to the CACH PE office during the times Daniels said he was there, but Daniels was not on the tapes. (Id. ¶¶ 46-47.) Moreover, UPS interviewed the PEs who worked at CACH on Sunday, May 27, 2001, all of whom said they had not seen Daniels. (Id. ¶ 37.)

  In his statement, Daniels said the person in the PE office, who he assumed was a supervisor and gave him his work assignment, was a white male in his mid-40s. (Id. ¶ 38.) Donovan Williams, who is a Black male in his 30s, was the only PE supervisor on duty at CACH on May 27, 2001. (Id. ¶ 40.) Williams said he did not see Daniels that day. (Id. ¶ 41.)

  On June 22, 2001, Neal terminated Daniels for submitting a fraudulent time card. (Id. ¶ 49.) The same day, Daniels filed a grievance challenging his termination. (Id. ¶ 52.)

  The first step in the grievance procedure was a June 28, 2000 meeting among Daniels, Labor Manager Gary Landem and Local 701 Business Agent Jon Baker. (Id. ¶ 56.) During the meeting, Landem told Daniels that if he resigned from UPS, UPS would not challenge any request he made for unemployment. (Id. ¶ 60.) Daniels exercised that option and resigned from UPS that day. (Id. ¶ 61.)

  By resigning, Daniels forfeited his right to continue the grievance process. (Id. ¶ 62.) Had Daniels continued with the grievance process, he might have ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.