NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0372n.06 F iled: May 31, 2007 No. 06-5813 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
MA RTI NO TA YL OR , Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. UN I TE D PA RCE LSER

VI CE, I NC , Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

B e fo re : SU HRHE I

NR I CH , CLAY and

SUT TO N, Cir c uit

Judg e s.
SUTTON , Ci r c u it

Ju d g e . M arti n o T ay lo r

f il e d th is a c ti o na g a in s t h is e mp lo y e r , United Parce l Service, Inc. (U PS), for reta liation and rac e discrimination in violation of Tit le VI I , § 1981 and Te nnessee law. The district court g rante d summary judgme nt in favor of the company , and we aff irm.
I. Taylor beg an wor

king for UPS in 1994. He he ld various par t-time jobs with the company
un til 20 01 , w he n h e ob ta ine d a fu ll- tim e “combin a tio n” po sit ion in U PS’ s O a kh a ve n f

a c ili ty in Memph is , T e n n e s s e e . I n a c c o r d an c e w it h th e te r ms o f th e c o ll e c ti v e b ar g a in in g a g r e e me n t that g overne d Tay

lor’s empl o y

m en t, combination positi ons join two part-time jobs, making the m oneNo. 06-5813

Taylor v. United Parce l Service , Inc.

- 2 - full-time position. Tay lor’s position was classified as “inside/inside” bec ause he perf ormed a ll of his work—both part-time jobs, in other wor ds—within the Oakhave n fac ility
. Ar tic le 41 of the c oll e c tiv e ba

rg a ini nga g re e me nt g e ne ra lly de sc ri be s the pa y sc a le fo r f

ull

time employ ees. It establishes a “ prog ression” for wag e increase s, with employ ees hitt ing the top pay rate afte r about two y ear s. J A 543–44. Tay lor completed t h i s p ro gression in Aug ust 2003,
ear ning the then-top rate of $19.00 pe r hour.
I n October

2003, UPS post ed an opening for a combination air/inside job—a position that
s p l i td u t i e s b e t w e e nd e l i v e r i n g a i r p a c k a g e s an d p e r f o r m i n g w o r k i n s i d e t h e O a kh a v e nf

a c i l i t y . In bo ld, un de rl ine d la

ngua g e , th e po sti nge xpla ine d th a t th e “ rate of pa y fo r t his pa rt ic ula r j ob is g overne d by Article 40.” J A 93. I n contra st to Article 41, Article 40 cover s UPS’s air operation and
say s th a t c omb inatio n a ir /in sid e e mpl oy e e s w ill be “ pa id t he a pp ro pr iat e ful l- ti me a ir

rate fo r a ir dr i v e r w o r k an d a p p r o p r i a t e i n s i d e p art
- t i m e r at e f o r t h e h o u r s w o r

k e d i no t h e r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . ” JA 542. Taylor succe ssfully bid for the a ir/inside positi on. Soon after sta rting the new job, he asked supervisors Ke n Billing s and Vickie Wis eman a bout perfor

ming the air portion of the position. They respo n d e d

th a t “ th e r e w a s n ’ t [ an y

s u c h ] w o r

k a v a il a b le ” an d a s k e d T ay lo r , a s a

r e s u lt , to p e rform ju st ins ide wo rk . JA 2 55 . A no the r s up e rv iso r, To ny Smith, no te d th a t th e c omp any did no t tr a in Taylor to deliver air m ail in November and Decembe r because it was so “busy ” duringthe holiday season. JA 95.No. 06-5813

Taylor v. United Parce l Service , Inc.

- 3 - Not only did Taylor perf

orm just insi de wor

k in the new job, but he also soon noticed that the company

was pa y ing him about thre e dollars less pe r hour than it had paid him before the switch. I n D e c e mbe r, he fi le d a

g ri e va nc e un de r the c oll e c tiv e ba rg a ini nga g re e me nt c omp la ini nga bo ut h is new pa y rate . By that time, it turns out, he had no problem doi ng only inside work; he just wanted to b e p a id a s mu c h h e h a d b e e n p a id u n d e r h is p r io r c la s s if ic a ti o n . A g r ie v an ce pa nel could not resolve the dispute, so the case was for war ded to a d ea d l o ck comm ittee, consisting of one repr esentative from Ta

y lor’s union and o n e UP S repre sentative. In Fe bruar y 2004, the dea dlock
c omm itt e e de nie d h is g ri e va nc e , w ithbo th m e mbe rs a g re e ingthat th e c omp any sh ou ld p ay

him a part-time pa

y rate for inside wor

k beca use his job was cla ssified as air /inside. Taylor’s position remained c lassified as a ir/inside until J uly 2005, when the union demanded it be rec lassified as inside/inside to ref lect the a ctual duties of the position. As re quired by the collective barg aining ag ree ment, UPS re-bid the position as inside/inside and awa rded it to Taylor afte r a bidde r with more se niority turned it down. Taylor filed a c omplaint ag ainst UPS i n district court alleg ing ra ce d iscrimination and reta liation under Title VI Iof the Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq ., 42 U. S.C. § 1981 and the Tenne ssee Human Rights Act, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 4- 21-101 et seq . I n May 2006, the district court g rante d UPS’s moti on for summary judgme nt.No. 06-5813

Taylor v. United Parce l Service , Inc.

- 4 -

II. On appeal , T ay l o r m aintains (1) that UPS reduced his pay in retaliation for

an ea rlier g ri e va nc e he fi le d a g a ins t th e c omp any and (2 ) t hat th e c omp any re fu se d to tr a in h im t o d e liv e r a ir packa g es bec ause he is Africa n-Amer ican. A c ommon fram ew o rk governs r etaliation and r ace discrimination claims filed under Title VI I , § 1981 and the Te nnessee Human Rig hts Act. See W ade v. Knoxv ille Utils. Bd. , 259 F.3d 452, 464 ( 6th Cir. 2001). Be cause Taylor base s h i s claims on circ umstantial (rathe r than dire ct) ev i d en ce , we a pply the Mc Do nn e ll D ou

gla s burden- shifting require ments. See McD onnell Dougl a s C orp. v. Gree n , 4 11 U. S. 7 92 (1 97 3) ; see also W renn v. Go uld , 808 F.2d 493, 500 ( 6th Cir. 1987). Un de r that dec isi on , Tay lor mus t est a bli sh a pr ima fa c ie
c a se of dis c ri min a tio n; U PS ma

y re bu t th e pr e su mpt ion

of dis c ri min a tio n aris ing fr om t his pr ima fa c ie sh ow ingby

art ic ulatin g a

le g iti ma te , n on dis c ri min a tor y re a so n f or its act io n; and , if

UPS supplies such a re ason, Tay lor must show that it is prete x tual. See M cDonne ll Douglas , 4 11 U. S.
a t 80 2– 05 ; see also Manzer v . Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co. , 29 F.3d 1078, 1084 ( 6th Cir. 1994) (“ To make a

su bmi ssi ble c a se on

the c re dib ili ty

of his e mpl oy e r’ s ex pl anat io n, the pla int if f i s require d to show by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e either

(1) that the proffe red r easons ha d no basis in fac t, (2) that the proffere d rea sons did not actually motivate his discharg e, or ( 3) that they
wer e insuffic ient to motivate discharg e.”) (interna l quotation marks and empha ses omitted).No. 06-5813

Taylor v. United Parce l Service , Inc.

- 5 -

A. Taylor bases his re taliation claim on the alleg ation that UPS cut his pay in response to a n employ ee g rieva

nce he filed in Ma

y 2003. The g rieva

nce a ccuse d “white mana g ers” T.J . Har per ( of the human re source s depar tment) and W alt Dickson (of the l abor department) of “harass[ing Ta y lor] and discriminat[ing] ag ainst” him by “makingtheir own rules of the contra ct” rathe r than following the collec tive barg aining ag ree ment. J A 468. A panel consisting of an equal number of UPS and union repre sentatives denie d Taylor’s g rieva nce.
On t he record before us, it is by no means clear that Taylor satisfies t he “c ausal c onnection” element of

a prima f acie case of re taliation. See W renn , 808 F.2d at 500. Even a ssuming that he ha s satisfied this threshold require ment, howeve r, he ha s not crea ted a tria ble issue of fa ct re g ardingthe leg itimacy

of the non-disc riminatory rea son UPS offere d for r educingTaylor’s pay
. Ac c or din g to U PS, it re du c e d Tay lor ’s pa y wh e n h e sw itc he d f

ro m th e ins ide /in sid e job to the air/inside job bec ause the collective ba rg aining ag ree ment require d it to do so. Befor e he ob ta ine d th e job , Tay lor e arn e d the top fu ll- tim e ins ide ra te of $1 9. 00 pe r h our i n a c c or da nc e wi th Article 41 of

the collec tive barg aining ag ree ment. UPS’s posti ng of the air/inside position indi cate d that A rt ic le 40 g ov e rn e d th e pa y fo r i t. T ay lor vo lun tari ly a pp lie d for the po sit ion , thin kin g “ that it was be tter” tha

n what he had been doing “ [b] eca use it’s a drivingposition, not . . . a labor position.” J A 2 5 3
. B e f

o r e t a k i n g t h e j o b , h o w e v e r , T ayl o r d i d n o ta s k U P S w h e t h e r

i tw o u l d a f f e c th i s p a y.No. 06-5813

Taylor v. United Parce l Service , Inc.

- 6 - Consist ent with UPS’s ex planation, Article 40 say s that the compan y must pay air/inside employ ees the “appr opriate inside part-time rate for the hour s worked in [non-air] classifica tions.” JA 54 2 ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . In a c c or da nc e wi th t his pr ov isi on , T ay lor

re c e ive d a

pa rt -t ime ins ide rate for the inside work that he perf ormed. The pay

roll depar tment initi ally

calc ulated this rate at $16.85 per hour ; Dickson l ater pointed out that Taylor’s appropriate part-time rate was $15.85 pe r hour ( a p o i n tT ayl o r

d o e s n o td i s p u t e ) , an d

t h e p ayr o l l d e p art m e n ts o r e d u c e d h i s p ay.
F ur the r jus tif y ing UPS ’s po sit ion

is the ou tc ome of

the g ri e va

nc e tha t T ay lor fi le d o ve r h is reduc ed pay
. See Jasany v. U.S. Postal Serv. , 755 F.2d 1244, 1252 ( 6th Cir. 1985) (observingthat “the r esult of the [gr ievanc e] procedur e is evidenc e that the e mp l o y er ’s ac tion was or wa s not justified”) (e mphasis omitt ed). B oth UPS and the union ag ree d t h at t h e collec tive barg aining ag ree ment—specific ally

Article 40—r equire d the company to lower Ta

y lor’s pay wh en he voluntarily

applied for , and acc epted, the air/inside position, which held a differ ent pay classification from the inside/inside position. Th at t he air duties aff

iliated with the position never mater ialized do e s no t c ha

ng e ma tte rs . A s th e g ri e va nc e pr oc e du

re c on fi rm e d, his job c la ssi fi c a tio n c on tin ue d to be g overne d by

Article 40 a

nd the pay

rate established by

that provision. Nor, it bea

rs adding , was Ta

y lor without recour se had he wished to m ak e sure that his job cl as s i fi cation reflec ted the wor k he wa s actua lly

doing. Consistent with the collec tive barg aining
a g re e me nt, he c ou ld h a ve ask ed the c omp any to r e c la ssi fy

his po sit ion

a s an in sid e /in sid e job to
re fl e c t th e natur e of

his re sp on sib ili ti e s. JA 15 6, 57 0. Ha d h e ma de su c h a re qu e st, ho we ve r, it would have ope ned up the possibi l i t y o f a more -senior e mploy ee w inning the position—whichNo. 06-5813

Taylor v. United Parce l Service , Inc.

- 7 - perha ps expl ains Taylor’s re ticence in reque sting a re- classification. See J A 564 (“When a
. . . new job becomes ope n the employ er sha ll post i t for bid . . . .”) . Taylor also re buffe d the company ’s later offe r to train him to deliver a ir pac kag es ( and bring his job’s duties in line with its classification) beca use he w as “c omfortable doing . . . the inside/inside” work. JA 290.
Atte mpt ingto s ho w that UPS’ s e xplanatio ns fo r h is r a te of pa y we re pr e te xtua l, T ay lor

fi rs t po int s to de po sit ion te sti mony of Ce dr ic Willi a ms, a

UPS la bo r m ana g e r. Ac c or din g to Wi lli a ms, Taylor should have be en “g etting w hateve r pay rate is applied to the inside part of [hi s] job . . . if he [did n’ t] do a ir .” JA 15 2. B ut t his is p re c ise ly

wh a t ha pp e ne d: B e c a

us e Ta y lor did no t per fo rm

a ir work, th e c o mp an y p a id h im a t th e lo w e r p art- ti me in s id e r a te f o r a ll o f th e h o u r s h e worked, as require d by

Article 40. Taylor next say s that the collec tive barg aining ag ree ment “g oes out of i ts way to [ e]nsure that
an e mpl oy e e ’s pa

y is n ot r e du c e d a s a

re su lt o f a job tr ans fe r, ” B r. at 31, inv ok ingthi s p ro vis ion in Article 41: “ No employ ee sha ll be required to complete a full-time prog ression more tha n one (1) tim e e ve n if

he or sh e tr ans fe rs be tw e e n f

ull -t ime job s. ” JA 54 3. B ut UPS did no t make him

be g in his full-time prog ression ane w; the company instead returne d him to the part-time pay scale under Article 40—a s the job posting indicate d would happen. Also unconvincing i s T aylor’s re liance on othe r provisions of the c ollective bar g aining ag ree ment. They addre ss situations in which a part-time e mploy ee tr ansfe rs to a full-time position,
and the top pa

y rate fo r the fu ll- tim e po sit ion is le ss tha n the ra te the e mpl oy e e e arn e d in his pa rt
-No. 06-5813

Taylor v. United Parce l Service , Inc.

- 8 - time job. When this happens, “the employ ee shall be placed at the top r ate of the new c lassification imm e diate ly .” JA 54 3. He re , h ow e ve r, Ta y lor tr ans fe rr e d fr om a fu ll- tim e po sit ion to ano the r f ull

time positi on. Fa

r fr om ensuring “that an employ ee’ s pay is not reduc ed as a re sult of a job transfe r,” Br . at 31, these provisions r ecog nize that UPS may pay employ ees at a lower

rate than that they

had previously

ear ned, JA 543.
B.
Ta y lor ’s c la im that U PS r e fu se d to tr a in him to de liv e r a ir ma il on a c c ount of his ra c e fa ils at the prima f

acie stag e, bec ause he has not s h o wn t h at any “similarly

situated, non-prote cted employ ees w ere treated more f avora bly ” than he was. C l a

yt o n v. Me ijer, Inc ., 281 F.3d 605, 610 (6 th C ir
. 20 02 ). On

a pp e a l, h e argue s th a t th e c omp any tr a ine d St e ve Wes t ( a

le ss- se nio r w hit e employ ee) at the same time it releg ated Ta y lor to inside work. B r. at 27. B ut the evidenc e does not
su pp or t th is a sse rt ion
. I n his de po sit ion Ta y lor c la ime d th a t U PS a llo we d We st t o d e liv e r a ir ma il,
no t tha tU P S t r a i n e d

h i m t o d o s o . E v e ni f

w e t a k e T ay l o r

t o ar g u e t h a tm e r e l y

a l l o w i n g W e s tto drive wa s discriminatory , he has not shown that West was sim ilarly situated “in all of the relev ant aspec ts,” Ercegov ich v. Goodye ar Tire & Rubber Co. , 154 F.3d 344, 352 (6th Cir. 1998) (interna l qu o t a t i o nm ar

k s o m i t t e d ) , an d

m a k e s n o e f

f o rtt o d o s o b e yo n d

a “ b a l d a s s e rt i o n ” t o t h e c o n t r a r

y, D. Ct. Op. at 8.
Ta y lor ne xt inv ok e s Ercegov ich for the proposition that he may satisfy his prima fac ie burde n by identifying “ a similarly -si t u at ed empl oy ee . . . or [by prese nting] other dire ct, indirec t, orNo. 06-5813

Taylor v. United Parce l Service , Inc.

- 9 - c ir c ums tanti a l e vid e nc e su pp or ting an inf

e re nc e of dis c ri min a tio n. ” 15 4 F .3 d at 35 1 ( e mph a sis
a dd e d) . B ut Ercegov ich addre ssed an e mploy er’ s failure to tr ansfe r (rather than lay off) an employ ee during a re duction-in-for ce. Id . I n that setting, w e have altere d the claimant’ s prima fa cie bur den

“ to r e qu ir e the pla int if

f t o s ho w that th e e mpl oy e r s ing le d h er out f or dis c ha rg e fo r i mpe rm iss ibl e
rea sons, as the employ ee is not ‘r eplac ed’ a fter a RI F.” Smith v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 195 F. App’ x 389, 394 (6th Cir. Aug . 16, 2006). Tay lor has not identified a non-re duction-in-for ce c ase f ormulating the test in this manner. See, e .g. , Clayton , 281 F.3d at 610 (To make a prima fa cie showingof ra ce discrimination, a plaintiff must “prove that he wa s either r eplac ed by a per son outside of the protec ted cl ass or show that sim ilarly situated, non-prote cted e mploy ees w ere treated more favor ably .”). At any r a te , e v e n if w e a ll o w e d T ay lo r to p r o c e e d u p o n s h o w in g “ d ir e c t, in d ir ect, or circ umstantial evidence supporting a n infere nce of

discrimination,” he has failed to do so. No dis c ri min a tor

y inf e re nc e a ri se s f

ro m U PS a llo wi ng Wes t to dr ive wi tho ut k no wi ngmor e a

bo ut We st ( f o r i n s t an c e , w h e th e r

h e n e e d e d

t o b e t r a i n e d

b e f o r e b e g i n n i n g t o d e l i v e r

p a c k a g e s )
. S i m i l a r l y, Taylor’s asse rtion that supervisors deliver ed pac kag es, alleged l y in violation of the collective barg aining ag ree ment, does not support an allegation of race discrimination in light of his deposition testimony that it was commonplace for supe rvisors to perf orm such duties. See J A 257 (“[S] upervisors wor

king . . . is to me like a

daily thing.” ). Taylor finally

argues that UPS’s failure to identify any other e mploy ees w ho moved from a n Article 41 positi on to an Article 40 position and subsequently had their pay rate decr ease d for insideNo. 06-5813

Taylor v. United Parce l Service , Inc.

- 10 - wo rk sh ow s d isc ri min a tio n. Al tho ug h h e do e s n ot s pe ll i t out, the inf e re nc e he is s ug g e sti ngmus t be that his supervisors k n ew t h at Taylor rec eived a lower r ate f

or air w ork than inside wor k and, be c a us e of his ra c e , fo rc e d him to do so le ly ins ide wo rk so that he wo uld be pa id l e ss. B ut t

he re is
no e vid e nc e that Ha

rp e r and Di c ks on , th e mana g e rs he a c c us e s o f r e ta liatio n, pla y e d a ny ro le in h is da y -t o- da y wo rk a ssi g nme nts . N or

is t here e vid e nc e that th e su pe rv iso rs wh o d e c lin e d to tr a in Taylor knew that he would rec eive less pa y if kept inside. See W

oythol v. Tex- Tenn Corp. , 112 F.3d 24 3, 24 7 ( 6th

Cir . 1 99 7) (“ [M]e re pe rs onal bel ief , c on je c tur e and

sp e c ulatio n a

re ins uf fi c ie nt t o support an infe renc e of . . . discr imination.”) (interna l quotation marks omitted).
C.
Given our dismissal of these c l aim s as a matter of law, w e nee d not addre ss Taylor’s final
c la im— that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

sh ou ld h a ve pe rm itt e d h im n ot o nly to a me nd his c omp la int

bu t a lso should have pe rmitted him to chang e his mind about seekinga jury trial.
III
. F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.