Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00494/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00494-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United Parcel Service, Inc.
Defendant
Larry Walther
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00494-JAM-KJN [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF UPS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

LARRY WALTHER,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. and 

DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00494-JAM-KJN

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT 

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. 

Complaint Filed: August 13, 2008 

The Honorable John A. Mendez 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:09-cv-00494-JAM -KJN Document 145 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00494-JAM-KJN - 1- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF UPS

This action was brought by Plaintiff Larry Walther (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant United 

Parcel Service, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff asserted claims for: (1) retaliation under the 

California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), (2) retaliation under the California Fair Employment 

and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (3) interference under the CFRA, (4) failure to engage in the 

interactive process under the FEHA, (5) failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the 

FEHA, (6) wrongful demotion in violation of public policy, and (7) punitive damages. 

I. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On January 20, 2010, the Court heard oral argument on Defendant’s Motion For Summary 

Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication Of Issues. Plaintiff appeared through 

his counsel of record, Sheri L. Leonard of Henk Leonard. Defendant appeared through its 

counsel of record, Katherine C. Huibonhoa of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP. The 

Court, having read and considered the moving and responding papers, and all supporting papers, 

and the oral arguments presented, and the matter having been duly heard, granted Defendant’s 

Motion and dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims for: (1) interference under the CFRA, (2) 

failure to engage in the interactive process under the FEHA, (3) failure to provide a reasonable 

accommodation under the FEHA, (4) wrongful demotion in violation of public policy, and (5) 

punitive damages. (See Docket No. 75.) 

The Court denied Defendant’s Motion as to Plaintiff’s claims for: (1) retaliation under the 

CFRA, and (2) retaliation under the FEHA. (See Docket No. 75.) 

II. JURY TRIAL

A jury trial in this matter on the remaining causes of action — Plaintiff’s claims for 

retaliation under the CFRA and the FEHA — commenced on May 24, 2010. Plaintiff appeared 

through his counsel of record, Robert P. Henk and Sheri L. Leonard of Henk Leonard. Defendant 

appeared through its counsel of record, E. Jeffrey Grube and Greggory W. Dalton of Paul, 

Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:09-cv-00494-JAM -KJN Document 145 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00494-JAM-KJN - 2- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF UPS

A. Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law (Rule 50) At Close Of Plaintiff’s Case

On May 27, 2010, at the close of Plaintiff’s case-in-chief, Defendant moved under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 50 for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation 

under the CFRA and the FEHA, as well as on Plaintiff’s claims for emotional-distress damages 

and front pay. The Court denied without prejudice Defendant’s Motion as to Plaintiff’s claims 

for retaliation and emotional-distress damages, but granted Defendant’s Motion as to Plaintiff’s 

claim for front pay. 

B. Jury Verdict

On May 28, 2010, a jury of eight individuals returned a verdict on Plaintiff’s claims for 

retaliation under the CFRA and the FEHA as follows: 

Did Plaintiff Larry Walther prove by a preponderance of the evidence that United 

Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) took an adverse employment action against him 

because he requested a medical leave of absence for toe surgery in 2007? 

 ________ Yes X No 

(See Docket No. 140.) The parties stipulated that this special verdict question resolved both of 

Plaintiff’s remaining legal claims — retaliation under the CFRA and retaliation under the FEHA. 

 

III. JUDGMENT

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED: 

1. That judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on all 

claims for relief asserted in the complaint; 

2. That Plaintiff shall take nothing on the complaint; and 

3. That Defendant shall recover its costs in an amount to be taxed by the 

Clerk pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and Local Rule 292. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:09-cv-00494-JAM -KJN Document 145 Filed 06/02/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00494-JAM-KJN - 3- [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF UPS

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 1, 2010

/ s/ John A. Mendez 

HON. JOHN A MENDEZ 

Judge, United States District Court 

Presented by: 

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 

By: s/ Greggory W. Dalton 

 Greggory W. Dalton 

Attorneys for Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. 

LEGAL_US_W # 64864140.1 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:09-cv-00494-JAM -KJN Document 145 Filed 06/02/10 Page 4 of 4