This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Retaliation
Wrongful Termination

Michael Marlo v. United Parcel Service Inc.

Published: Nov. 17, 2012 | Result Date: Aug. 24, 2012 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CV 09-7717 DDP (RZx) Verdict –  $8,805,700

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Mark C. Peters

John A. Furutani
(Law Offices of John A. Furutani)


Defendant

Elena R. Baca
(Paul Hastings LLP)

Elizabeth A. Brown


Experts

Plaintiff

Phillip H. Allman III, Ph.D.
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff Michael Marlo was a UPS supervisor who worked for UPS for 22 years. Marlo filed a class action wage and hour lawsuit in 2003, which was eventually decertified in May 2008. Marlo's individual case went to trial in May 2009.

In mid-2008, after decertification, Marlo encouraged other UPS supervisor to file their own lawsuits against UPS. Fifty-four UPS supervisors filed individual lawsuits from August to October 2008.

Marlo also made complaints about workplace safety concerns and safety violations at UPS to UPS and to governmental agencies. UPS district manager, Tim Robinson and Human Resources district manager believed that Marlo's lawsuit was a distraction, that other UPS supervisors weren't working as hard due to Marlo's lawsuit, and they viewed Marlo's lawsuit was negatively impacting employee morale. Robinson believed that Marlo's actions went against UPS culture, and that the lawsuits posed a monetary concern.

Plaintiff was denied promotion for a number of years, and was wrongfully terminated on Nov. 12, 2008, a few months before his case was scheduled for trial. It was UPS's position that Plaintiff, who was a member of management, was not considered ready for promotion prior to 2008. It was UPS's further position that he was not unlawfully denied a promotion. In 2008, when Plaintiff was asked whether he was interested in being promoted, Plaintiff rejected the idea, stating he did not want to be promoted while he was suing the company.

UPS retained independent investigators who concluded that Plaintiff had confronted and intimidated a customer, including use of profanity, and had confronted and intimidated the witness who reported his conduct. UPS independently corroborated this assessment. This conduct violated numerous UPS policies. Given Plaintiff's behavior and his position in management, UPS elected to terminate his employment. During the investigation, UPS allegedly withheld key eyewitnesses information from the investigators.

Settlement Discussions

UPS made no settlement offers.

Result

Plaintiff's verdict for $18,098,478 ($2,201,425 in economic and non-economic damages, $15,897,053 in punitive damages). Following argument on post-trial motions, the Court found the punitive damages award to be excessive and reduced it to $6,604,274.

Other Information

UPS intends to appeal.

Deliberation

2.5 days

Length

six days


#92258

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390