Plaintiff Shelbe L. Davis, Sr. sued Defendant United Parcel Service in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri raising claims of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII. Defendant United Parcel Service moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
On March 3, 2023, Plaintiff Shelbe L. Davis, Sr. filed an Employment Discrimination Complaint against United Parcel Service (UPS) alleging harassment based on race, discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII. The Complaint sought $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages. UPS filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim, which was followed by a series of procedural exchanges including an Order to Show Cause and a granted leave for Plaintiff to respond.
Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint alleging harassment, discrimination based on race and/or color, and retaliation. Specific allegations included experiencing racial discrimination and harassment from white employees, menial task assignments, exclusion from work activities, and a threat from an employee named Aaron Haynes. Plaintiff also claimed UPS management, including Ron Schleicher, Danny Ray, Mark Eckert, and Todd Hayen, failed to address his complaints about these issues. The alleged discriminatory conduct occurred on multiple dates in 2019, and Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights on August 10, 2019, which included details of specific incidents involving threats and warnings from UPS.
Legal Analysis
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: UPS argued that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies regarding his claims of discrimination and harassment based on race and/or color. The Court emphasized that to assert a claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must first exhaust administrative remedies by filing a timely charge with the EEOC or MCHR. Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination only checked the box for “Retaliation” and did not include “Race” or “Color,” nor did the narrative section raise issues of discrimination or harassment based on race and/or color. Therefore, the Court concluded that Plaintiff did not exhaust these claims and is barred from pursuing them in this case.
Retaliation: UPS also moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation, arguing insufficient factual allegations. Under Title VII, retaliation claims require a plaintiff to show (1) engagement in protected activity, (2) adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection between the two. Plaintiff claimed retaliation due to filing charges of discrimination and reporting threats. However, the Court found a lack of sufficient allegations connecting the filing of earlier charges to adverse actions taken by UPS, particularly due to a significant time lapse between the events. Additionally, Plaintiff’s specific allegations, such as receiving a safety warning letter and being followed and recorded by a supervisor, did not constitute adverse employment actions that would dissuade a reasonable worker from making a discrimination claim. Therefore, the Court found Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim of retaliation.
Conclusion
The Court found that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his claims of discrimination and harassment based on race and/or color, and failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim of retaliation under Title VII. The Court granted Defendant United Parcel Service’s Motion to Dismiss
Schrag on Law 