N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IC HAEL M AR LO, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. UNITED PAR C E L SER

VIC E, INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-57170

D.C . No. 2:09-c v-07717-DDP-R Z M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia De a n D. Pre ge rson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 4, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD a

nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s a nd C ARR , ** Se nior Distric t Judge . Unite d Parc e l Se rvic e , Inc . c ha lle nge s the jury ’ s ve rdic t a warding M ic ha e l M arlo $15.9 m

illion (la te r re d uc e d to $6.6 million) in punitive dam a ge s a

rising out 

# FIL E D APR 23 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Ja m e s G. C arr, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa tion.of his wrongful term ination. R e vie wing de novo, W hite v . Ford Motor C

o. , 312 F.3d 998, 1010 (9th C ir. 2002), we a ffirm . UPS argue s tha

t the e vide nc e wa s insuffic ie n t to support the jury ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t Vic e Pre side nt a

nd Distric t M ana ge r Tim

R o binson wa s a

“ m ana ging a ge nt” unde r C a lifornia la w. Vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to M arlo, a s we m

ust, Pav ao v . Pagay , 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th C i r. 2002), we c onc lude tha

t the e vide nc e wa s suffic ie nt to support the jury ’ s ve rdic t. Unde r C a lifornia

C i vil C ode § 3294(b), R obinson qualifie d a s a “ m ana ging a ge nt” if he “ e x e rc ise [d] substa

n t ia l inde pe nde nt a

uthority and judgm e nt in [his] c orporate de c isionm a king so tha

t [his] de c isions ultim

a t e ly de te rm ine [d] c orporat e polic y .” W hite v . Ultramar, Inc
. , 21 C a l. 4th 563, 566-67 (1999). He re , the e vide nc e showe d tha

t R obinson wa s the highe st-ra nking supe rvisor in a

7,000-e m

ploy e e distric t tha

t c o ve re d a

va st ge o g ra

phic are a from downtown Los Ange le s to the inla nd de se rts to C a l ifornia ’ s C e ntra l C oa st, a nd his re sponsibilitie s inc l ude d, in his own te rm s, “ m ana ging a c o m ple x busine ss,” whic h re quire d him “ to ta lk a bout running thebusine ss e v e ry da y .” R obinson m ana ge d supe rvisors a nd e m p loy e e s in c ha rge of the va

rious de pa

rtm e nts in his te

rritory , inc luding ope ra t ions, sa l e s, m arke ting, e n gine e ring, a utom otive , fina

nc e and a c c ounting, human re sourc e s, a nd la bor re lations. 2Furthe r, R obinson vie we d pa rt of his role a s m a inta ining a c o m p any

“ c u lture ”

— in e sse nc e , a

c om pa ny polic y — of supe rvisors a c ting a s “ owne rs” subje c t to a

sa la ry , ra t he r tha n the ove rtim e pa

y sought by

M a rlo. M arlo’ s la

wsuit, whic h initia lly

sought $400 m

illion in c l a ss-wide dam a ge s , thre a t e ne d to upe nd that c ulture . R obinson discu s se d the pote ntia l im p a c t of M a rlo’ s la w suit with his se nior sta ff a nd e xpre sse d his disple a sure tha t othe r supe rvisors we re filing sim ila r la wsuits. He vie we d the la

wsuit a s a “ distra c tion” tha

t ha d a ne gative e ffe c t on e m ploy e e m o ra le . The jury c o uld thus re a s ona bly c onc lude tha

t R obinson’ s de c ision to term i nate M arlo wa s a polic y m a king de c ision a im e d at prote c ting the c om pa ny “ c ulture .” Se e Ultramar , 21 C a l . 4th a t 577 (holding tha

t a single a c t of re ta lia tory te rm ination de m onstra

te d tha t a m iddle m ana ge r “ de t e rm i ne d c orporate polic y ” ); Dav is v . K

ie w it Pac . C

o. , 220 C a l. App. 4th 358, 373 (2013) (re ve rsing a gran t of sum

m ary judgm e n t be c a

use a jury c o uld infe r that by fa iling to prote c t a single worke r who c om

p la ine d of ha

ra ssm e nt, a

n e m ploy e e “ e xe rc ise d a

uthority that re s ulte d in the a d hoc form ulation of c orporate polic y ” suffic ie nt to qua lify him a s a m a na ging a ge nt). W e a lso c onc lude that R obinson’ s c onduc t wa s suffic ie ntly

re pre h e n sible to qua lify for punitivedam a ge s unde r C a lifornia la w. S e e C a l. C iv. C ode § 3294(a ).

3The award, a s re d uc e d by the distric t c ourt, wa s not unc onstitutiona lly e x c e ssive . Se e Zhang v . Am. Ge m Se a f oods, Inc
. , 339 F.3d 1020, 1044 (9th C ir. 2003). AFFIRM E D.

4Marlo v . Unite d Parc e l Se rv ic e , Inc . , No. 12-57170 C ARR , Se nior Distric t Judge , disse nting: R e spe c tfully , a

nd a ware of m

y le sse r fa m i lia

rity with C a l ifornia la

w re lating to m ana ging a ge nts, I disse nt. 

# FIL E D APR 23 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS