Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01487/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01487-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary T. Smith
Appellant
United Parcel Service
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1487

___________________________

Gary T. Smith

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

United Parcel Service

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: January 14, 2016

 Filed: July 12, 2016

____________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

United Parcel Service (UPS) fired Gary Smith, a full-time supervisor at UPS's

Earth City, Missouri distribution facility. After his termination, Smith filed this

lawsuit against UPS alleging race discrimination. The district court concluded that 1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 15-1487 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2016 Entry ID: 4424518 
Smith failed to show that UPS's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his

termination was pretextual. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to

UPS. We affirm.

I. Background

UPS hired Smith, an African-American male, in June 2010 as an unloader.

Smith advanced rapidly. In September 2010, UPS promoted him to the position of

part-time supervisor. And five months after that, UPS promoted Smith to full-time

supervisor on the "Night Sort" shift. Smith had several notable interpersonal conflicts

with other UPS employees during his tenure. In May 2011, as Smith distributed candy

to employees as a safety incentive, Camille Elston Young, the supervisor of the area,

said to Smith, "This ain't the time for safety candy, come back later!" This situation

2

escalated, resulting in Young yelling at Smith and asking for assistance to make him

leave the area. Smith filed a complaint, asserting that Young's "attitude and

unprofessionalism [were] hindering [him] from doing [his] job." Two months later,

in July 2011, Smith directed an employee, "let's go, . . . we have work to get done.

Let's move to the work." The employee took offense, resulting in a conflict that

required Smith's manager to intervene. In November 2011, Smith filed a complaint

about another conflict with Young, asking his manager to "intervene because the

vicious verbal attack from [Young] was unwarranted and without just cause."

Also in November 2011, Smith had a conflict with his manager, Trevor West,

and another supervisor, Mike Houlihan. One night during Smith's shift, West, a

Caucasian male, pulled aside some employees under Smith's supervision to discuss

their performance. Smith was upset by West's meeting and reprimand of employees

that Smith supervised without first talking to him. During Smith's conversation with

West about the matter, Houlihan, also Caucasian, entered the room and said, "I ain't

Record material that was typeset in all capital letters has been quoted using

2

standard sentence capitalization.

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1487 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2016 Entry ID: 4424518 
got time for this bulls**t," to which Smith replied, "Hey Mike, please don't talk to me

like that. If you have a problem with my people, just let me know." Houlihan replied,

"I ain't got time for this power trippin bulls**t, take that bulls**t somewhere else!"

Smith responded angrily:

Hold on m[o]ther f r. I asked your b** *h a*s not to talk to me like

that, but since you want [to] do it, then, let[']s do! Stay you're a*s over

on the PD 3, 4 and 5. You had the sort aisle and didn't do s**t with it;

I got it now!

Houlihan responded, "I'm a full time supervisor, I can do whatever the f**k I want!"

Afterward, TonyTaylor, the Division Manager and an African-Americanmale, called

Smith and Houlihan into his office separately to discuss the incident, but he

disciplined neither employee.

Smith experienced more difficulties at UPS the following year. In July 2012,

Smith reported in an internal UPS survey that "[t]he communication breakdown from

Managers to Full Time Supervisors to Part Time Supervisors is out of control.

Individuals being degraded, cursed out and humiliated will eventually h[i]nder the

success of UPS. UPS's model of, 'beating people up,' to achieve production numbers

will eventually impact the perception of UPS." Smith requested a transfer later that

month.

Finally, on August 25, 2012, Smith wasinvolved in an incident that culminated

in his termination. During his shift, Smith placed his keys in a drawer in his office.

Thereafter, a coworker told Smith that West had asked all the supervisors to meet in

the small sort area. When Smith arrived, West handed two packagesto him and asked

him to take them across the building; West and Houlihan were the only people

remaining in the small sort area. Later, when Smith returned to his office, he could

not find his keys. He suspected that West orchestrated the errand as a ruse to get him

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-1487 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/12/2016 Entry ID: 4424518 
away from his office so that West and Houlihan could take his keys. After looking for

his keys for 30 minutes, Smith called the police and called Taylor to report the

incident. Smith also called West and accused him of taking the keys: "Trevor, where

my keys at man? Why ya'll messing with me?" West replied, "I don't know where

your keys are!" Smith responded, "Whatever! If you mother f*****s want to go there,

let's go there. Don't be acting like some b*****s and doing it behind my back. Don't

bring my f*****g family into this!"3

Immediately following the incident, UPS put Smith on administrative leave.

Smith had a meeting about the incident with Human Resources Director Stan Roux.

When Roux alleged that Smith had threatened West, Smith denied it. Roux then said

that Smith had been insubordinate; Smith responded, "I did no such thing."

In a subsequent meeting with Roux, Smith renewed his request for a transfer.

Roux denied the request. Roux told Smith that he wanted him "to stay in the hub and

learn how to deal with conflictmanagement"; Smith denied having any problems with

conflict management. Roux then told Smith that he needed to change his attitude.

Smith replied, "I'm sorry sir, but how can you tell me to change my attitude? Sir, we

don't know each other. This is only the second time we have met." Roux then told

Smith, "I want you to go back there and do your job." Smith replied, "[S]ir, I do my

job." Roux said, "I don't want you to go back there and ever use profanity again," to

which Smith replied, "[Y]es, sir, I'll do whatever you tell me to do." Finally, Roux

said, "[S]o is it safe to say that if you use profanity again, that will be your last day

here?" Smith replied, "[N]o, sir, I won't agree to that, because anybody can come tell

you that I said something and you can say that I agree[d] to" be terminated.

Smith's keys were found six months later in a location that had been searched;

3

West's and Houlihan's involvement in the incident was never established.

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-1487 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/12/2016 Entry ID: 4424518 
After the meeting, Roux and Taylor decided to terminate Smith's employment.

Roux explains Smith's termination this way:

4. Human Resource Area Manager Eric Henderson reported

to me that Gary Smith (Plaintiff) on or about August 25, 2012 had

accused Trevor West of stealing his keys, cursed at West and had

allegedly threatened West. I was aware that the police were involved in

the matter. Needless to say, the incident was a big deal and generated a

lot of attention from a lot of people at UPS. [Smith] was suspended

pending investigation into the matter.

5. UPS'[s] security function interviewed all night sort

management to try to determine who, if anyone, took [Smith's] keys.

6. I metseveral times with [Smith] about the August 25, 2012

incident. I understood that [Smith] had a history of conflicts at UPS but

in our meeting [Smith] denied any conflict management problems.

7. During our meetings, I felt that [Smith] had used

inappropriate and threatening language toward West but that he failed

to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. I felt like [Smith] needed

to change his attitude but [Smith] denied having an attitude problem.

Worst of all, [Smith] could not even commit to me that, if he [were]

allowed to go back into the Hub, he could refrain from using

inappropriate language.

8. [Smith's] conduct violated UPS policies. I felt that because

[Smith] refused to acknowledge his problems and refused to commit to

change, [Smith] left UPS with no alternative but to terminate [his]

employment. I met with Tony Taylor and we agreed on this point.

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-1487 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/12/2016 Entry ID: 4424518 
Smith's termination letter from Henderson provided a similar explanation:

We recently conducted an investigation related to allegations of

inappropriate behavior related to an incident that occurred on the

morning of August 25, 2012.

This investigation revealed that your actions were very inappropriate for

a management person at UPS, and that you have been involved in a

pattern of conduct with other employees that violates the Company's

ProfessionalConduct and Anti-Harassment Policy, the PolicyBook, and

the Code of Business Conduct.

Despite the information gathered during the investigation, when we met

with you both during and at the conclusion of the investigation, you

stated that you felt that your behavior and actions were justified, and you

expressed no regret about anything that you had done or said related to

these events.

Consequently, because of your violations ofCompany policy, we are left

with no choice other than to terminate your employment with United

Parcel Service, effective September 14, 2012.

After pursuing remedies through alternative dispute resolution and the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission, Smith filed this case, alleging employment

discrimination on the basis of race. The district court granted summary judgment to

UPS, concluding that Smith failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the

proffered legitimate reasons for termination as pretextual. Smith appeals. We have

jurisdiction to review this final judgment of the district court pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1291.

II. Discussion

The district court concluded that Smith did not show that a genuine dispute of

material fact remained as to whether UPS's stated reasons for his termination were a

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-1487 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/12/2016 Entry ID: 4424518 
pretext for racial discrimination. Smith argues that the district court erred because the

evidence does not indicate that he was terminated for bad behavior but instead

suggests that UPS fired Smith because he is black. We disagree.

We review the district court's grant ofsummary judgment de novo, viewing the

evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in Smith's favor as the nonmoving

party. Chappell v. Bilco Co., 675 F.3d 1110, 1114 (8th Cir. 2012). Under the

McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, Smith is first required to make out

a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Torgerson v. City of Rochester,

643 F.3d 1031, 1046 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)). We presume for purposes of analysis that Smith

has satisfied this requirement. See Twymon v. Wells Fargo & Co., 462 F.3d 925, 936

(8th Cir. 2006). UPS is then required to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reason for terminating Smith; which it has done. Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1046. To

survive summary judgment, Smith must now demonstrate that a genuine issue

remains asto whether UPS's purported legitimate reason for termination is pretextual.

Id. Put another way, Smith is required to show that racial discrimination, not UPS's

stated reasons, "actually motivated" UPS to terminate his employment. See id. at

1047.

The totality of the evidence in this case does not support a finding of unlawful

discrimination. Smith has not put forth evidence to rebut UPS's contention that itfired

Smith due to his conduct. The record shows that Smith cursed in the workplace,

arguably threatened his supervisor, had multiple conflicts with other employees, and

disagreed with company efforts to address the problems. Smith's behavior might not

be viewed by some employers as a basis for termination. But Smith does not provide

evidence to show these reasons were merely rationalizations to cover for racial

discrimination.

-7-

Appellate Case: 15-1487 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/12/2016 Entry ID: 4424518 
Roux's explanation for Smith's termination focuses on Smith's pattern of

misconduct and his refusal to acknowledge his problems:

I understood that [Smith] had a history of conflicts at UPS but in our

meeting [Smith] denied any conflict management problems. . . .

[Smith's] conduct violated UPS policies. I felt that because [Smith]

refused to acknowledge his problems and refused to commit to change,

[Smith] left UPS with no alternative but to terminate [his] employment.

Smith's termination letter from Henderson matches Roux's explanation:

[Y]ou have been involved in a pattern of conduct with other employees

that violates [UPS's conduct policy]. . . . [And] when we met with

you . . . , you stated that you felt that your behavior and actions were

justified, and you expressed no regret about anything that you had done

or said related to [the lost-keys incident].

In short, these documents support UPS's assertion that it terminated Smith's

employment because he had a history of conflict at UPS and was unwilling to

acknowledge those problems and commit to change.

Smith's deposition testimony does not establish a fact dispute regarding his

interaction with Roux:

[UPS Counsel:] What did you understand that Stan [Roux] was

asking you to do [during the pretermination

meeting]?

[Smith:] I understood that Stan [Roux] was asking me to

change my attitude. I told Mr. Roux that I didn't

have an attitude problem. I didn't have behavior

problems. No one had ever documented me having

any attitude problems, any bad behaviors.

-8-

Appellate Case: 15-1487 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/12/2016 Entry ID: 4424518 
[UPS Counsel:] Hang on one second. Do you think it was bad

behavior for you to call Mike Houlihan a

motherf r?

[Smith:] Yes.

[UPS Counsel:] Do you think it was bad behavior for you to call

Trevor [West] a motherf** **r?

[Smith:] Yes.

Similarly, Smith testified thatRoux "wouldn't support me transferring because he felt

that I needed to stay and learn how to deal with conflict management." When asked

whether Smith felt he had any problems with conflict management, Smith responded,

"No problems at all." These statements are consistent with UPS's assessment that

Smith was unwilling to acknowledge his behavioral problems.

Finally, as the district court noted, "[Smith] has presented no evidence to

establish that [UPS's] given reason for his termination was pretextual." Smith points

to his deposition testimony that West referred to African-American employees as

"idiots" and was "harder" on young black men. But the evidence shows that West did

not play any part in the decision to terminate Smith's employment. Instead, Taylor and

Roux decided to fire Smith on the basis of his behavior and attitude. In short, we find

no reversible error in the district court's conclusion that "[Smith] has failed to show

that a material question of fact remains as to pretext, and [UPS] is entitled to

judgment on this claim."

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-9-

Appellate Case: 15-1487 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/12/2016 Entry ID: 4424518