Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Kemp v. UPS

Kemp v. UPS

United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Aiken Division

September 30, 2016, Decided; September 30, 2016, Filed

Civil Action No.: 1:14-cv-04840-JMC

Opinion

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the court pursuant to the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 49) filed by Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. ("Defendant"). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On April 18, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the court grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff Brady Kemp, III, ("Plaintiff") filed Objections to the Report, which are presently before this court. (ECF No. 60.) For the following reasons, this court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 59) and GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment with [*2]  prejudice. (ECF No. 49)

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The facts as viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff are discussed in the Report and Recommendation. (See ECF No. 59.) The court concludes, upon its own careful review of the record, that the Magistrate Judge's factual summation is accurate and incorporates it by reference. The court will only reference herein facts pertinent to the analysis of Plaintiff's claims. (ECF No. 60.)

Plaintiff is a sixty-three year old, African-American male. (ECF No. 54 at 2.) Defendant is in the business of delivering packages around the world. (ECF No. 49-3 at 3 ¶ 3.) "Packages are delivered to and picked up from . . . [Defendant's] customers in the familiar brown delivery trucks, which are referred to as 'package cars,' and the employees operating these package cars are referred to as 'Package Car Drivers.'" (Id. at ¶ 4.) Defendant employed Plaintiff as a package car driver responsible for making pick-ups and deliveries in the Barnwell area of Aiken, South Carolina. (Id. at ¶ 5; see also ECF No. 49-4 at 3 ¶ 5.) "The terms and conditions of [a] Package Car Drivers' employment [we]re governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between [*3]  UPS and the . . . [International Brotherhood of Teamsters]." (ECF No. 49-3 at 5 ¶ 11.)

In 1975, Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a package car driver in Augusta, Georgia. (ECF No. 54-9 at 7:16-20.) In 1977, Plaintiff laterally transferred to Defendant's location in Aiken, South Carolina. (Id. at 7:21-24.) For the last two to four years of his employment with UPS, Plaintiff ran a delivery route in the Barnwell, South Carolina region. (Id. at 20:16-24.) During a significant portion of his career, approximately ten and fifteen years, Plaintiff was a union steward. His duties included protecting the rights of the union members on hourly wages at UPS. (Id. at 10:16-13:2.) He was the union steward at the time of his termination.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135600 *

Brady Kemp, III, Plaintiff, v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Defendant.

Prior History: Kemp v. Ups, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137045 (D.S.C., Apr. 18, 2016)

CORE TERMS

termination, grievance, pretext, summary judgment, retaliation, package, prima facie case, recommendation, suspension, notice, disciplinary, deviation, asserts, race discrimination, nondiscriminatory, reasons, protected activity, union steward, infraction, causation, proffered, alleges, missed, pickup, warning letter, no evidence, employees, delivery, objects, driver

Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Over Actions, Judicial Officers, Magistrates, Duties & Powers, Objections, Standards of Review, Judgments, Summary Judgment, Evidentiary Considerations, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Legal Entitlement, Materiality of Facts, Genuine Disputes, Burdens of Proof, Nonmovant Persuasion & Proof, Labor & Employment Law, Evidence, Burden Shifting, Disparate Treatment, Circumstantial & Direct Evidence, Discrimination, Scope & Definitions, Employment Practices, Adverse Employment Actions, Discharges & Failures to Hire, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Retaliation, Elements, Adverse Employment Actions, Protected Activities, Causation, Statutory Application, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Elements, Governments, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate