Andy T. Williamson sued United Parcel Service, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. United Parcel Service moved to dismiss for lack of prosecution.
Factual Overview
Williamson was previously employed by UPS. In 2019, while still employed, he filed an employment discrimination complaint against UPS in the same court. In January 2021, UPS notified Williamson that his position would be eliminated, and his employment was terminated on February 28, 2021. UPS provided Williamson with a separation agreement, which he executed. UPS then moved to enforce the agreement in the 2019 case, but the court stayed the action to allow UPS to seek a ruling from a Georgia court on the agreement’s enforceability.
In September 2023, Williamson filed the present action, alleging that UPS discriminated against him by refusing to pay severance due to him because of the 2019 lawsuit. UPS moved to dismiss based on res judicata, which the court denied. After the court denied UPS’s motion to stay discovery, UPS noticed Williamson’s deposition for July 22, 2024, after the close of discovery. When Williamson did not appear, UPS filed the motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution.
Legal Analysis
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution: The court analyzed the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows for involuntary dismissal if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court rules or orders. The court applied the Ehrenhaus factors to determine if dismissal was appropriate.
Prejudice and Interference with Judicial Process: The court found that while UPS argued it was prejudiced by Williamson’s discovery responses and failure to attend his deposition, these issues were more appropriate for the magistrate judge to review at this stage of litigation. The court noted that UPS noticed the deposition after the close of discovery without seeking an amendment to the scheduling order.
Culpability and Warnings: The court found no evidence that Williamson had failed to participate in the pretrial order draft after receiving a warning from the magistrate judge about potential dismissal.
Efficacy of Lesser Sanctions: The court determined that dismissal was an extreme sanction not warranted at this stage, given that discovery issues were still pending before the magistrate judge.
The court denied UPS’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, finding that the Ehrenhaus factors did not support the extreme sanction of dismissal at this stage of the litigation.
Schrag on Law 