Speaker 1: 0:18

Welcome to the Deep Dive, the show where we take a stack of your sources, articles, research our own notes and really try to pull out the most important nuggets of knowledge to get you well-informed fast.

Speaker 2: 0:28

And today we're plunging headfirst into a truly staggering figure $39.6 million.

Speaker 1: 0:36

Yeah, $39.6 million. It's hard to even wrap your head around it. Imagine a workplace dispute, you know, maybe starting small but spiraling completely out of control into this massive legal battle.

Speaker 2: 0:48

And ending with a judgment. For that amount it really speaks volumes, doesn't it, about the human cost, the financial cost, when things escalate like this in the workplace.

Speaker 1: 0:56

It really does. This isn't just some abstract number. It's at the heart of our deep dive today. It's at the heart of our deep dive today. It represents years of complex allegations, fierce defenses and the whole rigorous sometimes really slow process of the legal system.

Speaker 2: 1:09

We're basically pulling back the curtain on a very specific, very high stakes legal case. It involves a former United Parcel Service employee, tavio Gratton, and his employer, the big one, united Parcel Service Inc.

Speaker 1: 1:22

Exactly so. It's not just about the money, though that's obviously grabbing headlines. It's about the you know the human story behind it and all the really intricate legal details.

Speaker 2: 1:32

And our guide for this journey. The way we're getting into this fascinating, complex story is through the actual legal documents themselves.

Speaker 1: 1:40

Right, We've got the plaintiff's initial complaint, that's Gratton's filing, then the defendant's formal answer. Ups's response.

Speaker 2: 1:47

And then a really comprehensive court order on summary judgment that's where the judge weighs in before trial and finally the actual judgment document itself.

Speaker 1: 1:56

Yeah, and these aren't just dry, boring legal texts. You should think of them more like a stack of insights. They give you these unique, often conflicting perspectives from both sides.

Speaker 2: 2:06

And, crucially, from the court itself. We get to see how the case evolves, what the judge thought was important, what evidence actually mattered and maybe what didn't.

Speaker 1: 2:15

So our mission for you, our listener, is to unpack all these documents, distill the really key information and help you understand the core arguments, the court's reasoning and, ultimately, how it all turned out.

Speaker 2: 2:30

We'll look at the different stories about what happened, how the legal system tries to untangle these kinds of complex issues and maybe some surprising facts that came out along the way.

Speaker 1: 2:36

Think of it as your shortcut to getting genuinely informed about a real-world, high-stakes legal drama. Enough detail so you can really grasp those aha moments that shaped the conclusion. So, uh, let's get started. Okay, so our story really kicks off with Tavio Gratton's initial filing the plaintiff's complaint. This is the document where he lays out his side, his core claims and what he was actually asking the court for.

Speaker 2: 3:01

Right. So Mr Gratton identified as a black man, a former UPS employee. He brings this lawsuit seeking a few different things. First, something called declaratory judgment.

Speaker 1: 3:11

What does that mean? Exactly?

Speaker 2: 3:13

It's basically asking the court to officially state the rights and obligations of everyone involved, like make it clear who was right and wrong under the law. Ok, he also sought equitable relief. That's non-monetary stuff. Maybe asking UPS to change internal policies, that kind of thing.

Speaker 1: 3:27

And then the big one.

Speaker 2: 3:28

And then the big one, significant monetary damages, which is you know where that huge $39.6 million figure eventually comes in. This is about getting compensated for harm.

Speaker 1: 3:39

And looking at the bigger picture, this kind of lawsuit is fundamentally about trying to secure or restore rights, isn't it?

Speaker 2: 3:45

Absolutely. Gratton based his claims on some very specific anti-discrimination laws. There's the Washington Law Against Discrimination WLAD they call it. That's a state law, ok. Then there's a federal law, 42 USC, section 1981. People usually just say Section 1981. It guarantees equal rights, especially in contracts like employment.

Speaker 1: 4:06

And there was a third one too right, Something about common law.

Speaker 2: 4:08

Yeah, that's important Washington's common law toward a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. This basically broadens the scope. It suggests his firing wasn't just against a specific statute but against fundamental public policy, like the policy against discrimination.

Speaker 1: 4:23

So what were the specific allegations? They sound pretty serious, they are.

Speaker 2: 4:27

He claimed that during his time at UPS, he faced discrimination, was subjected to a hostile work environment because of his race and, crucially, was retaliated against for engaging in legally protected activities.

Speaker 1: 4:39

Like complaining about discrimination.

Speaker 2: 4:41

Exactly Complaining, filing grievances, that sort of thing. He specified this involved being discriminatorily and retaliatorily denied job opportunities and assignments, not getting the same chances as others.

Speaker 1: 4:54

And the ultimate outcome he alleged.

Speaker 2: 4:56

Unlawful termination Fired by UPS on October 19, 2021, for reasons he claimed were illegal.

Speaker 1: 5:03

So, going back to the money damages, what exactly was he asking for? It sounds like more than just lost wages.

Speaker 2: 5:09

Oh, definitely he sought monetary relief covering, yes, his quantifiable financial losses lost wages, benefits that's called pecuniary damages but also the emotional toll, the distress that's non-pecuniary damages.

Speaker 1: 5:21

Okay, that makes sense.

Speaker 2: 5:22

Plus compensatory damages just generally making up for his losses, and significantly punitive damages, to the fullest extent the law allows.

Speaker 1: 5:30

Punitive damages. That's like a punishment right, not just compensation.

Speaker 2: 5:34

Exactly. It signals he believed UPS's actions weren't just wrong, but maybe malicious, or at least recklessly indifferent to his rights, bad enough to warrant a financial penalty on top of everything else All right, let's dive into the timeline of events, at least as Mr Gratton laid them out in his complaint.

Speaker 1: 5:50

Where did his UPS career start?

Speaker 2: 5:52

He started back on September 26, 2016, as a cover driver, then delivery driver in Seattle.

Speaker 1: 5:58

Okay.

Speaker 2: 5:59

Then, around January 2018, with about a year and a half experience as a cover driver, he transferred, moved to the UPS center in Yakima, Washington.

Speaker 1: 6:08

According to his complaint, this transfer to Yakima is where the problems really started.

Speaker 2: 6:11

Immediately. Yeah, that's his claim. He alleged that right away, ups managers, specifically an on-road supervisor named Matt Frumherz and the center manager, eric Loomis, started treating him differently than his white co-workers.

Speaker 1: 6:24

How so? What kind of different treatment?

Speaker 2: 6:25

Well, frumherz, for example, was described as being short with him, ignored him and spoke down to him, which apparently contrasted sharply with how Frumherz acted towards white drivers, where he was noticeably friendly.

Speaker 1: 6:37

Hmm, subtle stuff, but it can add up.

Speaker 2: 6:40

It can, and Gratton alleged this different treatment quickly impacted his actual work. His ability to earn From Hearst and Lemus handled scheduling and routes and they allegedly gave Gratton less opportunity to work than other cover drivers.

Speaker 1: 6:53

Less opportunity. How did that play out?

Speaker 2: 6:55

He claimed he'd often show up at the center ready to work, only to be laid off for the day, meaning sent home without work or pay because of supposedly insufficient volume.

Speaker 1: 7:04

But wasn't there a system for that, like seniority?

Speaker 2: 7:07

Exactly. Union seniority rules usually dictate that the lowest-ranking drivers get laid off first, but Gratton claimed he was often the only cover driver who was laid off.

Speaker 1: 7:17

Even if less senior drivers were working.

Speaker 2: 7:19

That's the allegation suggesting intentional singling out even when work was available. He even claimed part-time cover. Drivers sometimes got preference over him which would violate those union seniority rules.

Speaker 1: 7:30

Wow, okay, any specific examples of this.

Speaker 2: 7:33

Yes, the complaint details one from February 2018. Another driver apparently asked Gratton directly to cover a route for him, but Supervisor Firmherz stepped in abruptly and said no, not today, no reason given.

Speaker 1: 7:46

Just, no Just no.

Speaker 2: 7:48

And then around February 26th, grattan apparently pressed Firmherz asking why he wasn't allowed to cover that route, and Firmherz allegedly replied with something really problematic.

Speaker 1: 7:59

What was it?

Speaker 2: 7:59

Because you didn't come and ask me like a man.

Speaker 1: 8:03

That's loaded.

Speaker 2: 8:05

Extremely Grattan immediately objected according to the complaint, saying that is belittling and attacking of my character.

Speaker 1: 8:12

And did he report this?

Speaker 2: 8:13

He did. He reported it to the center manager, eric Loomis, but according to Grattan, loomis did not seem concerned and gave no true response, just indifference.

Speaker 1: 8:21

That alleged indifference from management seems like a recurring theme early on.

Speaker 2: 8:25

It does seem to set a pattern in his narrative.

Speaker 1: 8:27

So things clearly weren't going well. What happened next? Did he take formal action?

Speaker 2: 8:38

He did. On April 19th 2018, he filed a formal complaint, a grievance likely through the union, about being laid off without the proper compensation that union rules apparently required, okay, a formal step.

Speaker 1: 8:44

Did that have any effect?

Speaker 2: 8:45

It did have one immediate effect. As a direct result, the center managers were required to start posting a weekly list of driver route assignments.

Speaker 1: 8:54

Ah, so more transparency.

Speaker 2: 8:56

Supposedly, but here's where a key piece of alleged evidence emerged for Gratton. This newly posted list, he claimed, actually revealed that he was the only driver who was actually not being allowed to work. Others listed for layoff were still getting hours somehow.

Speaker 1: 9:10

So the list itself became evidence of the alleged singling out.

Speaker 2: 9:13

That's what he argued, yeah, and he claimed that filing this complaint just led to more problems. Further on doing retaliation.

Speaker 1: 9:19

How so.

Speaker 2: 9:20

Oof, turning his co-workers against him Exactly. Grattan claimed it was a deliberate attempt at public shaming, trying to create frustration by other drivers towards Mr Gratton, basically isolating him.

Speaker 1: 9:42

OK, so that brings us to a really significant incident, detailed in the complaint the ride along on April 24th 2018. What happened there?

Speaker 2: 9:51

Right, this is a major one. So management assigned Gratton a ride along with another manager, sam O'Rourke. This is supposed to be a standard thing A manager observes a driver on their route.

Speaker 1: 10:01

Pretty routine procedure usually.

Speaker 2: 10:03

Usually, but Gratton alleged this one turned into something else entirely. He claimed O'Rourke, who is described as white and younger than Gratton, subjected him to racial harassment throughout the day.

Speaker 1: 10:14

Racial harassment.

Speaker 2: 10:16

Repeatedly calling him boy. Among other things, the complaint lists specific examples.

Speaker 1: 10:21

Like what.

Speaker 2: 10:22

Things like is this the hardest you've ever worked? Boy, move faster. Boy, let's go. Boy, I told you to hurry.

Speaker 1: 10:27

Wow, that term boy used like that incredibly offensive.

Speaker 2: 10:32

Deeply offensive, yeah, especially directed at a black man by a white man in a position of authority. There were also alleged offensive sports references like boy, why would I play you when I have a star running back? And after Gratton apparently ran to drop off a package, o'rourke exclaimed there we go, boy. That's what I like to see.

Speaker 1: 10:52

Did Gratton just take this, or did he push back?

Speaker 2: 10:56

According to the complaint, he pushed back and early on he directly confronted O'Rourke, asking why are you calling boy? I'm not your boy.

Speaker 1: 11:05

Good for him. What did O'Rourke say?

Speaker 2: 11:07

O'Rourke's alleged response was I'm from the South, that's how I talk.

Speaker 1: 11:10

Oh, that old excuse.

Speaker 2: 11:13

Right, and Grattan apparently came back strong, saying something like no black man in the South would be okay with you talking to him that way, and I am not okay with it, so stop calling me that.

Speaker 1: 11:21

A clear message. Did O'Rourke stop?

Speaker 2: 11:23

Allegedly no. Despite Gratton's clear opposition, o'rourke kept calling him boy and speaking demeaningly, even in front of customers.

Speaker 1: 11:31

In front of customers. Was there anyone else who saw this?

Speaker 2: 11:34

Yes, and this is crucial. The complaint mentions an eyewitness, a Foot Locker employee who saw some of the interaction during a delivery.

Speaker 1: 11:42

What did the witness say?

Speaker 2: 11:44

The witness described O'Rourke's conduct as shocking. Said O'Rourke was talking to Tavio in a very condescending tone, barking orders and repeatedly calling him boy.

Speaker 1: 11:54

And did the witness think it was race-related?

Speaker 2: 11:57

Yes, the witness felt certain that this supervisor was talking to Tavio this way because he is black. The witness also mentioned Gratton was working really efficiently and hard, contradicting any reason for criticism, and apparently at the end of that delivery the supervisor said I got this boy working.

Speaker 1: 12:15

That eyewitness account sounds incredibly damning.

Speaker 2: 12:17

It adds significant weight to Gratton's allegations. Definitely an independent observer seeing it that way.

Speaker 1: 12:22

So after this ride-along, what did Gratton do? Did he report it again?

Speaker 2: 12:26

Immediately, Upon returning to the center, he reported O'Rourke's conduct straight to the center manager, Eric Loomis. He said I'm not going on ride-alongs with your managers if they are going to be racist. Samuel O'Rourke was calling me boy the whole time.

Speaker 1: 12:40

And Loomis' response, this time still indifferent.

Speaker 2: 12:47

Loomis allegedly replied that's just how he talks, and then just turned away.

Speaker 1: 12:52

Unbelievable. How did this affect Gratton?

Speaker 2: 12:54

The complaint says it caused him severe humiliation and distress, to the point where he apparently broke down crying in his car before driving home that day. It really highlights the deep personal impact these alleged events had. So these events, particularly the ride-along and the report to Loomis, seem to mark a turning point in Gratton's narrative. He alleges things got worse afterwards, describing ongoing retaliation, including open displays of hostility.

Speaker 1: 13:21

Open hostility Like what.

Speaker 2: 13:23

Well, there's a really vivid example from May 25, 2018. The complaint calls it the get the F off the property incident.

Speaker 1: 13:29

Okay, tell me about that.

Speaker 2: 13:30

Gratton was off duty at the center picking up a personal package. An on-road supervisor from hers the same one from earlier incidents allegedly yelled at him then get the F off the property and repeated it when Gratton questioned him.

Speaker 1: 13:42

Just yelled that at him while he was off duty.

Speaker 2: 13:45

That's the claim, and Gratton added he had never seen from hers treat another employee that way, suggesting it was targeted personal hostility.

Speaker 1: 13:54

So the alleged retaliation continued after that.

Speaker 2: 13:57

Yes, gratton claimed he started being laid off even more than before, and Supervisor O'Rourke, the one from the ride-along now apparently refused to even acknowledge or speak to him. Just a complete shunning, wow.

Speaker 1: 14:10

Did Gratton file more complaints?

Speaker 2: 14:11

He did. In June 2018, he filed more grievances about O'Rourke's alleged racial harassment, about Fremher's yelling at him and about being denied work opportunities when work was clearly available.

Speaker 1: 14:22

Like what kind of work?

Speaker 2: 14:24

For instance, he claimed managers were delivering misloads packages that ended up on the wrong truck themselves, while he, Gratton, was laid off, which violated his eight-hour work guarantee under the union contract. This pattern of him filing complaints is really central.

Speaker 1: 14:38

It seems like every complaint just led to more alleged problems.

Speaker 2: 14:41

That's the narrative which brings us to the route assignments. Craton alleged he was given a worse schedule and driving routes than his white colleagues. Specifically, he kept getting assigned the really undesirable mall route.

Speaker 1: 14:56

The mall route. What was so bad about it?

Speaker 2: 14:59

Described as the bulkiest route, often needed more than one truck. Hard to finish quickly, especially with lots of heavy pickups later in the day. The complaint states plainly nobody likes the mall route and it's the only one. They would let Tavio do.

Speaker 1: 15:13

Just that one route over and over.

Speaker 2: 15:15

That's the allegation which raises questions. You know about how routes are assigned and if the system can be manipulated to punish someone.

Speaker 1: 15:22

And it wasn't just getting the route, was it? There was something about trying to stop him from even getting it in the first place.

Speaker 2: 15:27

That's right, he alleged center manager Eric Loomis actually tried to prevent him from winning the mall route bid when it became available. Loomis apparently asked a more senior white driver, Brandon Ward, to bid on it specifically because, according to what Ward allegedly told a witness later, they didn't want to have to give Tavia work and wanted to keep him laid off.

Speaker 1: 15:47

So actively trying to block him from getting a permanent route, even a bad one.

Speaker 2: 15:52

That's the claim, but Ward reportedly refused telling the witness. It's not a good route, so Gratton ended up getting it.

Speaker 1: 16:00

Okay, so he got the bad route, despite their alleged efforts. Did things improve then?

Speaker 2: 16:05

According to the complaint, no. Loomis and Frumherst then allegedly purposefully made his route longer, added out of the way stops to it and then criticized him for taking too long to complete it.

Speaker 1: 16:18

Setting him up to fail basically.

Speaker 2: 16:20

That's the inference. And again there's witness testimony mentioned Setting him up to fail. Basically that's the inference. And again there's witness testimony mentioned A witness apparently specifically remembered a conversation after Gratton's grievance forced the schedules to be posted.

Speaker 1: 16:29

What was the conversation?

Speaker 2: 16:30

Matt Frumbers allegedly said I'll do anything to not work. Tavio and Eric Loomis nodded and agreed. The supervisors then supposedly decided to pile the work on him. If we're going to work him, let's make him work.

Speaker 1: 16:44

How did they do that?

Speaker 2: 16:45

By making his pickup load much heavier than that of other drivers and then unfairly criticizing him for being slow, even though, according to the witness, he actually took less time than others had on the same route with heavier loads.

Speaker 1: 16:58

And what did this witness think of Gratton as an employee?

Speaker 2: 17:01

Described him as an excellent employee Hardworking, polite, on time and eager to do his job With a great attitude, taking a lot of pride in being a stand-up employee. The witness found it sad he had to file grievances just to get put onto the schedule at all. Adding, I never saw a white driver having to do this. That comparison is pretty stark.

Speaker 1: 17:59

It really is, and the alleged targeting wasn't just about work assignments, was it? There was other scrutiny.

Speaker 2: 18:06

Right Loomis allegedly treated Gratton with open disdain in front of other drivers, singled him out for small common issues and, publicly shaming him, called him out repeatedly on loudspeaker for discriminatory scrutiny.

Speaker 1: 18:19

Any examples of that?

Speaker 2: 18:20

Yeah, Things like being reprimanded for visible tattoos or for wearing a sweater, While allegedly many white drivers also had visible tattoos and were not called into the office or wore sweaters without issues. It paints a picture of applying rules differently based on who the employee was, and this is a really important part of the complaint. It wasn't just about Gratton. He alleged a pattern of discrimination against other Black employees too. This helps build the case that it wasn't just a personal conflict but potentially something systemic.

Speaker 1: 18:50

OK, what examples did he give for other employees?

Speaker 2: 18:53

Well, there was Travis Anderson, another Black driver. Loomis allegedly tried to force him to cut his hair right after Anderson filed a complaint about incorrect pay.

Speaker 1: 19:01

But had he always had long hair?

Speaker 2: 19:03

Yes, throughout his employment, apparently, and white drivers were permitted to have long hair. Loomis also allegedly reprimanded Anderson for visible tattoos again, while white drivers supposedly weren't hassled about theirs.

Speaker 1: 19:16

So similar issues to what Gratton claimed he faced Any others?

Speaker 2: 19:21

Yeah, another black driver. Xavier Briggs Loomis allegedly required him to scratch. That means successfully completing a route within a set time five times to pass his probationary period, a requirement apparently not imposed on white drivers.

Speaker 1: 19:37

Five times. That sounds excessive.

Speaker 2: 19:39

It does, and a complaint goes on to describe more general disparate treatment white drivers getting superior routes and workloads, black drivers like Gratton being criticized for taking too long on routes that were overloaded and not being allowed to remove stops, like white drivers sometimes were.

Speaker 1: 19:54

So it wasn't just about getting work, but the kind of work and the support given.

Speaker 2: 19:58

Exactly, and there's more. When black drivers finish their own routes, they are allegedly required to go back out and help the white drivers finish theirs and deliver misloads, but white drivers were seldom asked to do the same for black drivers.

Speaker 1: 20:13

Hmm, that sounds like an unequal distribution of the less desirable tasks.

Speaker 2: 20:17

That's the allegation and, like Grattan, other black drivers were also often paid incorrectly, leading to more grievances. So the complaint paints this picture of broader systemic issues affecting multiple Black employees, providing crucial context for Grattan's individual claims.

Speaker 1: 20:35

So, despite all this alleged hostility and disparate treatment, grattan kept pushing back.

Speaker 2: 20:40

According to the complaint, yes, he continued his opposition, standing up not just for himself but also as well as other black drivers. He apparently assisted them in filing complaints and advocating for fair treatment.

Speaker 1: 20:51

He took on an advocacy role. It sounds like.

Speaker 2: 20:53

It seems so, and on June 11, 2020, he filed another written complaint, this one specifically about being singled out and scrutinized for issues that white employees weren't disciplined for.

Speaker 1: 21:03

Did he explicitly mention race in that complaint?

Speaker 2: 21:06

Yes, very explicitly. He wrote this has been a noticeable issue with Eric Loomis on his overly negative and prejudiced choice of discipline toward his black employees. Pretty direct language.

Speaker 1: 21:18

And how did management allegedly react to this continued opposition?

Speaker 2: 21:22

With, perhaps unsurprisingly, further hostility and retaliation. The complaint states it was no secret that they wanted to fire him.

Speaker 1: 21:31

Any evidence of that desire to fire him.

Speaker 2: 21:32

A witness reported something quite chilling. Center manager Loomis allegedly warned this witness in his truck that associating with Mr Gratton would cause you a lot of problems in your UPS career.

Speaker 1: 21:43

Wow, trying to isolate him even further.

Speaker 2: 21:45

And Loomis apparently also asked this witness if he had seen anything Gratton was doing wrong, allegedly fishing for information to use against him.

Speaker 1: 21:53

So building a case possibly.

Speaker 2: 21:55

That's the implication which leads to the final act described in the complaint. Ups unlawfully terminated Mr Gratton's employment on or about October 19th 2021.

Speaker 1: 22:06

And Gratton's position on the reasons UPS gave for firing him.

Speaker 2: 22:09

That they were false and protectual. Just an excuse. Basically, he asserted the real reasons were his race, his protected activity like filing all those complaints, and that the termination violated Washington public policy against discrimination and for proper wage payment. That's the core of his wrongful termination. Violated Washington public policy against discrimination and for proper wage payment. That's the core of his wrongful termination claim.

Speaker 1: 22:28

OK, that was a detailed look at Mr Gratton's side of the story laid out in his gotcha. Anything else notable in their overall response?

Speaker 2: 22:35

Well, there was a slight corporate nuance. They clarified. Ups stated that the entity that actually employed Gratton was the Ohio Corporation of UPS. Entity that actually employed Grattan was the Ohio Corporation of UPS, which is a subsidiary of the perhaps more well-known Delaware Corporation, also called UPS.

Speaker 1: 22:49

What does that matter?

Speaker 2: 22:50

It can sometimes matter for liability or jurisdiction, especially in huge companies with complex structures. They specified this answer was filed on behalf of that Ohio entity. Just a detail but shows the corporate complexity.

Speaker 1: 23:03

Okay, but despite the broad denials, did UPS admit anything? Were there points of agreement?

Speaker 2: 23:08

Yes, there were key admissions. They admitted the basic employment facts that Tavio Gratton is a former UPS employee and you know upon information and belief a black man. Right. The court had jurisdiction over the federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. They agreed venue was proper because they do business and employed Gratton in the Eastern District of Washington. Basic procedural stuff.

Speaker 1: 23:32

What about the timeline in his role?

Speaker 2: 23:33

They admitted employing him as a packaged car driver from September 26, 2016 until October 27, 2021. Note that date is slightly different from the one Gratton used, but close. They admitted he worked in Seattle before transferring to Yakima.

Speaker 1: 23:49

And the union contract, the CBA.

Speaker 2: 23:52

Crucially. Yes, they admitted that packaged car drivers work is governed by a collective bargaining agreement, the CBA, and they admitted that work assignments and layoffs are subject to the CBA's seniority provisions. This becomes really important later.

Speaker 1: 24:05

Okay, what about all the grievances Gratton filed? Did they admit those happened?

Speaker 2: 24:09

They admitted some specific ones. They admitted he pursued a grievance in April 2018 about compensation on layoff days.

Speaker 1: 24:16

The one that led to the schedules being posted. That's the one.

Speaker 2: 24:19

They admitted that grievance was resolved and UPS agreed to start posting those weekly route assignments in Yakima. They also admitted he pursued grievances about alleged CBA violations on other occasions.

Speaker 1: 24:29

more generally, and the ride-along incident.

Speaker 2: 24:32

They admitted that ride-alongs happened periodically and that Sam O'Rourke did ride along with Gratton on or about April 25, 2018. They even admitted O'Rourke is white and about three years younger than Gratton, but, importantly, they denied the harassment allegations associated with it.

Speaker 1: 24:48

What about the incident where Fremhers allegedly yelled at him?

Speaker 2: 24:52

The May 25, 2018 incident. They admitted Gratton was at the Yakima Center that day off duty looking for a personal package in a delivery truck. They admitted Fremhers instructed him to get it at the will call window instead to let on-duty employees work.

Speaker 1: 25:06

But did they admit the yelling, the get the F off part?

Speaker 2: 25:09

No On that specific point. They said UPS was without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity as to the exact conversation, which basically implies a dispute over what was actually said, a denial.

Speaker 1: 25:21

Okay, any other admissions?

Speaker 2: 25:23

They admitted he filed a grievance in June 2018, claiming Fromherse showed no respect or dignity during that May 25th incident and, critically, they admitted they terminated Gratton's employment on October 27th 2021. So they acknowledge the key events happened the hiring, the transfer, the ride-along grievances, the termination but they dispute the reasons and the characterizations of those events.

Speaker 1: 25:47

Right, so admitted, the facts denied the meaning. What about the vast majority of Grattan's specific factual claims, like being singled out, the boy comments route, manipulation, discrimination against others?

Speaker 2: 26:00

For most of those specific damaging allegations, ups generally used blanket denial language like denies the allegations contained in this paragraph.

Speaker 1: 26:08

Just a flat denial.

Speaker 2: 26:10

Pretty much, or, as with the FromHers conversation, sometimes they'd state they were without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity and therefore denied it on that basis. This covered things like Grattan's current residence or the exact words used in certain conversations. It forces Grattan to prove every detail.

Speaker 1: 26:26

And did they respond to the legal claims themselves, like violating anti-discrimination law?

Speaker 2: 26:31

Yes, they asserted that some parts of the complaint were just legal conclusions to which no response is required. But if a response was required, they denied any unlawful conduct was required. They denied any unlawful conduct denied violating RCW 49.6, the WLAD and denied that Grattan was owed any unpaid wages. A full denial of legal wrongdoing.

Speaker 1: 26:52

So, beyond just denying Grattan's claims, how did UPS try to proactively defend itself? Did they raise specific legal arguments to block the lawsuit?

Speaker 2: 27:01

Absolutely. This is where their affirmative defenses come in. These are arguments UPS makes, saying essentially, even if some of what Gratton claims is true, there's a legal reason why he still shouldn't win. It's their proactive shield.

Speaker 1: 27:12

Okay, what were some of these shields?

Speaker 2: 27:14

Well, first, just repeating the general denial of anything not admitted. Second, a standard defense failure to state a claim, Basically arguing that Gratton's complaint, even if you read it generously, doesn't actually describe a legally valid case that could result in relief.

Speaker 1: 27:28

Like the facts alleged, don't add up to illegal discrimination or retaliation under the law.

Speaker 2: 27:33

Precisely. Then comes a really critical one in any discrimination case Legitimate non-discriminatory reasons.

Speaker 1: 27:41

Oh, this sounds important.

Speaker 2: 27:42

It is. Ups argued that all its actions related to Grattan were done in good faith and based on legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory factors, unrelated to any unlawful purpose or bias. They claimed everything was done for good cause, based on their reasonable business judgment.

Speaker 1: 28:01

So they're saying, even if things looked bad to Grattan, there was a valid, non-biased business reason behind it.

Speaker 2: 28:07

Exactly that's the core defense against the discrimination and retaliation claims. Then they raised mitigation of damages. What's that? It means that if Gratton did suffer damages like lost wages, his claims should be reduced or barred if he didn't take reasonable steps to minimize those damages, Like if he didn't try hard enough to find a comparable job after being fired.

Speaker 1: 28:26

OK, so blaming him for not reducing his own losses? What else?

Speaker 2: 28:30

Timing defenses. They argued his claims might be barred by statutes of limitations, timeliness or lashes, basically saying he waited too long to file his lawsuit according to legal deadlines.

Speaker 1: 28:39

Makes sense Any others.

Speaker 2: 28:40

Yes, waiver and Doris Stoppel. Any others? Yes, waver and Doris Doppel. This suggests Gratton might have given up his right to sue, maybe by settling earlier union grievances, or that he took inconsistent positions that should prevent him from suing now.

Speaker 1: 28:55

Like saying one thing in a grievance and another in court.

Speaker 2: 28:57

Potentially, yeah. They also argued alternative causation of distress, claiming any emotional distress Gratton suffered wasn't caused by his employment at UPS but by other factors in his life and unclean hands a defense arguing Gratton shouldn't get relief because of his own alleged misconduct.

Speaker 1: 29:16

OK, quite a few there. Anything related to the union contract.

Speaker 2: 29:19

Yes, a big one. Federal labor law preemption, they argued. Gratton's claims were preempted or blocked by federal labor laws like the National Labor Relations Act.

Speaker 1: 29:28

What does preemption mean here?

Speaker 2: 29:30

It means they were arguing that because his employment was governed by a union contract, the CBA disputes related to it should be handled under federal labor law and the CBA's grievance procedures, not through state anti-discrimination lawsuits, Essentially trying to move it out of the court and into a labor context.

Speaker 1: 29:48

Interesting. Ok, what else was in their defensive arsenal?

Speaker 2: 29:51

The after acquired evidence defense. This is interesting. It means that even if UPS fired him for an illegal reason, if they later found out about some misconduct Gratton committed before he was fired that they didn't know about at the time and that misconduct would have gotten him fired anyway, then his damages should be limited or barred.

Speaker 1: 30:11

So, like finding out later, he lied on his application.

Speaker 2: 30:14

Exactly like that. It's a defense that can significantly reduce damages, if proven. They also argued scope of managerial authority.

Speaker 1: 30:23

What's that about Limiting blame?

Speaker 2: 30:25

Sort of. They claimed any wrongful acts by their managers or supervisors were outside the scope of hisher authority, not authorized or condoned by UPS corporate and UPS didn't know, or shouldn't have known about them trying to distance the company itself from individual managers' alleged bad actions.

Speaker 1: 30:42

Separating the managers from the company.

Speaker 2: 30:44

Then failure to exhaust administrative remedies, arguing he didn't properly go through the required steps with agencies like the EEOC before filing the lawsuit. Yeah, and a general claim of lawful good faith conduct, saying UPS acted reasonably and lawfully without any intent to deprive Gratton of his rights.

Speaker 1: 31:03

And they left the door open for more defenses.

Speaker 2: 31:05

Yes, they included a reservation of rights to add more defenses later as they discovered more information during the case. Standard practice but shows they were keeping options open.

Speaker 1: 31:15

So what did UPS ultimately ask the court to do?

Speaker 2: 31:19

In their prayer for relief, they asked the court to dismiss Gratton's complaint entirely, deny all his demands and claims and make Gratton pay UPS's reasonable attorney's fees and costs for having to defend the lawsuit. A complete rejection of his case.

Speaker 1: 31:32

All right. So we've got Gratton's detailed allegations in the complaint and UPS's comprehensive denials and defenses in the answer. A clear conflict. Now let's move to a really critical stage the court's order on summary judgment.

Speaker 2: 31:44

Yes, this is where the judge steps in, looks at the evidence gathered by both sides before a potential trial and decides if there's enough genuine dispute about the important facts to actually need a trial. So, the judge isn't deciding who's right or wrong, yet Not exactly. The judge is asking based on the evidence presented so far depositions, documents, affidavits could a reasonable jury possibly find in favor of the party opposing the motion? If the answer is clearly no for a particular claim, the judge can dismiss that claim right there, grant summary judgment.

Speaker 1: 32:16

Okay, and in this case both sides filed motions.

Speaker 2: 32:19

They did. Plaintiff Gratton filed for partial summary judgment on some issues and defendant UPS filed for summary judgment on likely all the claims.

Speaker 1: 32:27

And what was the outcome? Did one side win?

Speaker 2: 32:29

It was split. The court order says plaintiff's motion was granted in part and defendant's motion was granted in part.

Speaker 1: 32:36

So a mixed bag Some claims move forward, some get dismissed.

Speaker 2: 32:40

Exactly it means the judge found for some claims or defenses there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact, so they could be decided legally right then. But for others there was enough conflicting evidence or credibility issues that they had to proceed to a trial for a jury to decide.

Speaker 1: 32:55

Makes sense. How did the court summarize the background facts leading up to this point?

Speaker 2: 33:01

The judge provided a neutral summary. Confirmed Gratton's work history. Started UPS SEP 2016 in Seattle. Transferred to Yakima about two years later. Confirmed his employment was governed by the Teamsters Collective Bargaining Agreement, cba, which included grievance procedures and noted tensions arose in Yakima.

Speaker 1: 33:20

What specific tensions did the court highlight?

Speaker 2: 33:22

It mentioned the April 20, 2018 grievance about layoffs, summarized Gratton's claim of frequent layoffs violating hour guarantees favoring less senior white drivers and noted UPS's counterargument Layoffs were seniority-based. Gratton was junior due to the transfer, and sometimes he failed to respond to work calls, which Gratton disputed.

Speaker 1: 33:41

And the resolution of that grievance.

Speaker 2: 33:42

The court noted it was resolved with UPS starting to post schedules and Gratton receiving some back wages. An early dispute with a partial resolution.

Speaker 1: 33:51

OK. What about the ride-along incident? How did the court describe that?

Speaker 2: 33:56

The judge summarized the court allegation Supervisor Sam O'Rourke repeatedly called Gratton boy on April 25, 2018, using offensive phrases, noted Gratton asked him to stop. O'rourke allegedly refused and both Gratton and a customer witness were offended by the racial undertones.

Speaker 1: 34:14

And the reporting to Loomis.

Speaker 2: 34:15

The court included that too. Gratton reported it to center manager Loomis, whose initial alleged response was that's just the way Sam talks. But the court also noted Loomis later conceded response was that's just the way Sam talks. But the court also noted Loomis later conceded in deposition that the language could definitely be perceived as racist, even if he didn't think O'Rourke intended it that way. Loomis claimed he had an informal talk with O'Rourke.

Speaker 1: 34:35

So some acknowledgement from Loomis later on, but maybe not initially.

Speaker 2: 34:39

Seems that way from the summary. The court also covered the alleged retaliation after Gratton reported O'Rourke Gr. That away from the summary.

Speaker 2: 34:46

The court also covered the alleged retaliation after Gratton reported a Rourke Gratton claiming Loomis and Fromhers retaliated with verbal abuse and denying work Including those specific incidents the like a man comment yes, summarized, fromhers is alleged because you didn't come and ask me like a man comment, which Fromhers denied. And the get the F off incident, which Fromhers also disputed, claiming Gratton was interfering with deliveries. The court noted Gratton reported these to Loomis, who allegedly failed to act, leading to Gratton filing more grievances in June 2018.

Speaker 1: 35:15

What about the claim that managers were trying to find reasons to fire him?

Speaker 2: 35:18

The court summarized that allegation, too, gratton, claiming that after the June 2018 grievances, supervisors started looking for reasons to fire him. Documenting minor things like a slightly long lunch break.

Speaker 1: 35:30

And the witness accounts about wanting him gone.

Speaker 2: 35:33

Yes, the court mentioned Supervisor Michelle Reyes and employee Lisa Irvine reportedly overheard from hers and Loomis expressing a desire to get rid of Gratton. It also noted Loomis' concession that he might have said it would be better if Gratton were gone, but denied saying he wanted to fire him. A subtle distinction maybe.

Speaker 1: 35:51

And the tattoo issue.

Speaker 2: 35:52

Summarized Gratton's claim of being berated for visible tattoos while white drivers weren't, and Loomis' dispute claiming equal enforcement.

Speaker 1: 36:01

OK, what about the whole saga with the mall route?

Speaker 2: 36:04

The court covered that in detail, Gratton becoming the bid driver for the undesirable mall route in October 2018. His allegation that Loomis refused to teach him other routes and only offered an alternative if O'Rourke trained him, which Gratton refused understandably.

Speaker 1: 36:20

And the claim. Loomis tried to get someone else to take the route.

Speaker 2: 36:23

Yes, the court noted Gratton's belief that Loomis tried to get a more senior white driver, brandon Ward, to bid on the mall route specifically to block Gratton Also mentioned. Gratton filed his EEOC discrimination charge around this time, october 19th 2018.

Speaker 1: 36:38

So after he got the mall route, the court summarized the challenges he faced then.

Speaker 2: 36:42

Right the alleged conspiracy to make his job harder Mentioned Michelle Reyes overhearing Loomis and Frumher's planning to pile the work on plaintiff and add out of the way stops. Also his claim of getting the death truck and UPS's explanation for that personal, no racial motive. Other drivers often helped Gratton because he took longer and labor manager Carl Laird stated truck assignments were based on route vehicle need, not the individual driver. So competing explanations.

Speaker 1: 37:14

What about the later grievances? The production quota one?

Speaker 2: 37:17

Summarize that too June 11th 2020, gratton alleging Loomis racially discriminated by counting prepack bags against his quota, while a white driver got to count individual packages, which helps meet quota faster.

Speaker 1: 37:30

And UPS's response.

Speaker 2: 37:31

UPS countered that their policy is to count bags and the white employee's count was actually corrected later and he didn't get a bonus. So they claim it was a mistake, not discrimination.

Speaker 1: 37:41

Okay, and the later harassment, retaliation, grievances.

Speaker 2: 37:44

Mention the January 2021 grievance about continuous harassment and retaliation from Loomis overloading routes worst truck retaliation for his union shop steward role and for helping other Black employees. And the September 2021 grievance about favoritism and route manipulation, plus Gratton's testimony about Loomis frequently withholding paychecks requiring grievances to get paid.

Speaker 1: 38:06

It sounds like a constant stream of conflict and complaints. Did the court mention any internal investigation by UPS into these?

Speaker 2: 38:13

Yes, it mentioned Carl Laird. The labor manager investigated Gratton's January 2021 grievance. Laird concluded Loomis' actions were just neutral application of policy, no racial bias.

Speaker 1: 38:25

There sounds like a but coming.

Speaker 2: 38:26

There is a big butt. The court explicitly noted that Laird admitted during his deposition that he did not interview Plainfield, gratton or Gratton's listed references as part of his investigation.

Speaker 1: 38:35

Wow, he investigated a complaint without talking to the person who made it or his witnesses.

Speaker 2: 38:40

Apparently so. Laird also generally felt there was no merit to a lot of plaintiff's claims. That admission about the flawed investigation process was likely to be very significant for the judge's assessment of UPS's handling of the situation. And, importantly, the court didn't just focus on Gratton's own experiences. It also summarized the related racial allegations coming from other Black employees at the Yakima Center. This provides crucial context.

Speaker 1: 39:07

Right the idea of a pattern. What did those other employees allege?

Speaker 2: 39:11

Well, derek Tamez testified that another supervisor, bill Peterson, actually referred to Gratton using a racial slur that Nurtavio and called a different Black employee stupid and dumb and worthless.

Speaker 1: 39:22

That's horrific. Did Tamez report it?

Speaker 2: 39:24

He testified. He reported it to Loomis, the center manager and Loomis allegedly just shrugged it off Shrugged off a racial slur used by a supervisor, according to Tamez's testimony. Yes, then there was Xavier Briggs, the driver mentioned earlier regarding probation. He also claimed white drivers got preferential routes and workloads and that he and Gratton often had to help more junior white drivers with their misloads.

Speaker 1: 39:45

So reinforcing Grattan's claims about unequal work distribution.

Speaker 2: 39:50

Exactly. Briggs also alleged Loomis asked him if he knew of things that plaintiff was doing wrong Again that fishing for information idea. And when Briggs refused to answer, loomis allegedly retaliated by overloading Briggs's route.

Speaker 1: 40:05

Retaliation against someone for not helping undermine Gratton.

Speaker 2: 40:08

That's the allegation. And finally, travis Anderson the driver Loomis allegedly told to cut his hair.

Speaker 1: 40:15

Right After the wage grievance.

Speaker 2: 40:16

Yes, Anderson alleged retaliation by Loomis. First, the hair incident. Anderson is Pan-African, always had long hair. White employee with similar hair wasn't asked. Anderson asked Gratton for help filing a religious exemption, which was successful.

Speaker 1: 40:30

So Gratton was helping others.

Speaker 2: 40:32

It seemed so, but after the exemption was granted, loomis allegedly retaliated again, this time by forcing Anderson to cover his tattoos, while supposedly white drivers with all kinds of tattoos showing all the time weren't bothered.

Speaker 1: 40:44

Same pattern, gratton alleged for himself.

Speaker 2: 40:46

Yes, Anderson also testified he overheard Loomis telling other drivers to stay away from plaintiff. So these combined testimonies from Thomas, Briggs and Anderson paint a picture suggesting a broader potential culture of racial bias and retaliation, lending significant weight to Gratton's narrative beyond just his own word.

Speaker 1: 41:06

Okay, so that covers the history of alleged discrimination and retaliation. Now let's get to the event that UPS cited as the reason for firing him the incident on October 19th 2021, leading to his termination on October 27th. How did the court summarize this?

Speaker 2: 41:23

The court laid out the core allegation Gratton was dismissed following sexual harassment allegations stemming from an incident on the loading dock that day and, crucially, it highlighted the starkly conflicting accounts of what actually happened. This conflict is central.

Speaker 1: 41:38

OK, what were the different versions? What was Gratton's account?

Speaker 2: 41:41

Gratton said he tripped, reached in instinctively to steady himself and his hand landed on the back of a preload supervisor, Linda Hernandez-Cruz, he said he immediately clarified it was an accident.

Speaker 1: 41:51

And Hernandez-Cruz's version.

Speaker 2: 41:52

She recalled someone grabbing her lower hip from behind while she was bent over sorting packages. She then asked Gratton, why are you touching me inappropriately?

Speaker 1: 42:01

Okay, so already a difference between back and lower hip, and steadying versus grabbing. What about witnesses?

Speaker 2: 42:08

This is where it gets even more complicated. There were two key witnesses with dramatically different stories presented in the summary judgment documents. First, Jose Ramirez Castillo.

Speaker 1: 42:21

What did Castillo say? He saw.

Speaker 2: 42:23

Castillo claimed he saw Gratton approachruz from behind extend his arm toward her bottom and grab her bottom briefly. He specifically stated the pathway was clear. No way plaintiff could have stumbled.

Speaker 1: 42:35

Directly contradicting Grattan's tripped explanation. What about the conversation?

Speaker 2: 42:39

Castillo recalled Hernandez-Cruz, saying what are you doing? That is unacceptable, and he claimed. Grattan replied oh I'm sorry, I'm just kidding, and man, no one can take a joke.

Speaker 1: 42:47

Just kidding, that sounds bad. If true, was there more from Castillo?

Speaker 2: 42:57

Yes, the court noted an earlier written statement by Castillo alleged Gratton said he couldn't wait to go one-on-one with Hernandez Cruz as he grabbed her bottom hip, which Castillo confirmed meant buttocks. However, during his later deposition, Castillo couldn't specifically recall the one-on-one part, but stuck to the grabbed-her-bottom-hip account.

Speaker 1: 43:12

Okay, so Castillo's account is very damaging to Gratton. Was there a witness supporting Gratton's version?

Speaker 2: 43:17

Yes, Derek Tamez, the same employee who reported the racial slur. Tamez claimed he saw Gratton stumble and brace himself on Hernandez-Cruz's back with his arms up. Tamez stated most certainly an accident.

Speaker 1: 43:30

Completely different from Castillo's account. Could Tamez hear what was said?

Speaker 2: 43:34

No, he testified. He was too far away to hear the conversation.

Speaker 1: 43:37

So you have two witnesses, one saying deliberate grab on the bottom with incriminating comments, the other saying accidental stumble onto the back. A huge discrepancy.

Speaker 2: 43:45

Absolutely. How did the court summary describe UPS's investigation into this incident? It laid out the process. Hernandez-cruz reported it to Supervisor Fromhers. Fromhers collected Castillo's statement and gave Hernandez-Cruz the number for Ethics Point. Ups's internal reporting hotline Ethics Point referred it to Ryan Wiedenmeier, a security supervisor for investigation. Wiedenmeier interviewed Gratton, hernandez Cruz and Ramirez Castillo, but the court noted he did not interview Derek Tamez, the witness supporting Gratton, nor two other unnamed witnesses identified after his initial interviews were done.

Speaker 1: 44:21

He didn't interview the witness whose account might have cleared Gratton. That seems odd.

Speaker 2: 44:27

It certainly raises questions about the thoroughness or perhaps the focus of the investigation. Wiedenmaier concluded it seemed more that it was a touch versus someone falling into someone and deemed it unwanted physical contact. He did, however, determine that the alleged one-on-one comment from Castillo's initial statement was unsubstantiated.

Speaker 1: 44:46

And did Wiedenmaier know about Gratton's history of discrimination complaints when he investigated?

Speaker 2: 44:50

Critically no. The court summary states Wiedemeyer was unaware of plaintiff's prior racial bias allegations. This lack of context could be significant in how he interpreted the incident.

Speaker 1: 45:03

So who made the final decision to fire Gratton?

Speaker 2: 45:07

Wiedemeyer's findings went to Carl Leiert, the labor manager we heard about earlier. On October 27th, Leiert and his supervisor decided Gratton had engaged in unprovoked assault under the CBA rules, which allows firing without warning.

Speaker 1: 45:21

Unprovoked assault. That sounds quite severe based on the conflicting accounts.

Speaker 2: 45:25

It does. The termination letter was actually signed by Eric Loomis. The center manager Grattan had accused of bias, although UPS later claimed only Leard and his supervisor had the actual authority to terminate.

Speaker 1: 45:35

Interesting detail about who signed versus who had authority. How did Grattan respond to the firing?

Speaker 2: 45:40

He filed union grievances for wrongful termination and being falsely accused.

Speaker 1: 45:44

Yeah. He defended his innocence at the union hearings but the court noted something important?

Speaker 2: 46:01

Yeah, but it sets up Gratton's argument later in the lawsuit that the sexual harassment claim was just a pretext, an excuse manufactured to hide the real retaliatory motive stemming from his race and his previous complaints.

Speaker 1: 46:15

And did he have any evidence for that pretext? Argument beyond the history of conflict.

Speaker 2: 46:20

Yes, he pointed to the fact that Carl Laird had apparently drafted a termination letter in UPS's workday computer system before Weidenmeier's investigation was even complete. Lyard testified this was just regular administrative practice, but Gratton argued it showed the decision was predetermined.

Speaker 1: 46:37

Pre-drafting the termination letter yeah, that could look suspicious.

Speaker 2: 46:41

He also alleged UPS had failed to respond similarly to sexual harassment allegations made against white male employees, suggesting disparate treatment even in how these serious allegations were handled.

Speaker 1: 46:51

OK, this is it. The judges reviewed all the evidence, the conflicting stories, the investigation details. Now we get to the court's rulings on summary judgment, the judge's actual legal conclusions. What happened with those pretrial defenses UPS raised, like the statute of limitations?

Speaker 2: 47:05

Right the gateway issues. For the statute of limitations, the court laid out the rules Three years for state WLAD claims, four years for federal Section 1981 claims Plaintiff filed Oct 18, 2022. So discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts had to fall within those windows Roughly after Oct 18, 2019 for WLAD, october 18, 2018 for Section 1981.

Speaker 1: 47:30

So anything before that was just irrelevant.

Speaker 2: 47:32

Not quite, and this was a critical nuance. The court highlighted Older incidents like the 2018 O'Rourke ride-along or the From Hers Yelling incident. Even if too old to be standalone claims could still be used as background evidence. Specifically, they could support the hostile work environment claim if they were part of the same unlawful employment practice involving the same primary persons O'Rourke from Herz-Lumas and showed a pattern, so they stayed relevant as context.

Speaker 1: 47:55

Okay, that makes sense. What about the preemption argument that federal labor law blocked his claims?

Speaker 2: 48:01

The court shut that down. Defense dismissed the judge found Grattan's claims were not preempted by the LMRA or other labor laws. Why not? Because Gratton wasn't primarily arguing that UPS misinterpreted the CBO's definition of unprovoked assault. He was arguing UPS manufactured the assault claim as a pretext for racial bias and retaliation. State anti-discrimination rights, like under WLAD, are non-negotiable, the court said, separate from the CBA. Even his grievances mentioning his shop steward role were tied into broader racial discrimination allegations. Big win for Gratton there.

Speaker 1: 48:37

Definitely, and the waiver in Estoppel defense did settling earlier grievances stop him.

Speaker 2: 48:41

Also defense dismissed. Ups didn't properly argue the waiver part, so that was out For Estoppel. The court ruled that settling earlier wage-related grievances didn't mean Grattney had settled his separate racial bias claims. The judge distinguished between settling a pay dispute and giving up the right to sue over alleged discrimination.

Speaker 1: 49:00

Okay, so Gratton cleared those initial hurdles. Now what about the core claims, the discrimination claims under WLAD and Section 1981?

Speaker 2: 49:09

This is where Gratton hit a major roadblock. To survive summary judgment on discrimination, he needed to establish a prima facie case, enough initial evidence to suggest discrimination likely occurred. Ups argued he failed mainly because he didn't identify specific similarly situated white employees who were treated more favorably under comparable circumstances. And what did the? Argued he failed mainly because he didn't identify specific similarly situated white employees who were treated more favorably under comparable circumstances.

Speaker 1: 49:31

And what did the judge decide?

Speaker 2: 49:32

Summary judgment granted to defendant. The discrimination claims were dismissed.

Speaker 1: 49:36

Dismissed why?

Speaker 2: 49:37

The court found Gratton did not establish that Pramah Feshi case. He didn't provide specific enough comparator evidence. No named white employees identified who definitively got more work, better routes or whose mislows he assisted under truly similar circumstances, meeting the strict legal standard for comparison.

Speaker 1: 49:54

What about the examples he did give, like the production quota?

Speaker 2: 49:57

The court found UPS had sufficiently countered those For the quota issue. Mike Somerville example UPS showed Somerville's count was corrected. No bonus paid For dress code minor infractions. Gratton lacked specific documentation showing white employees in similar situations weren't disciplined. Witness statements about others weren't detailed enough on seniority routes or documented discipline history to serve as legal comparators. Even the Travis Anderson hair tattoo example didn't directly establish discrimination against Grattan's tattoos or enough similarity.

Speaker 1: 50:30

So the direct discrimination claims failed for lack of specific comparative evidence? What about the hostile work environment claims?

Speaker 2: 50:38

Similar outcome, unfortunately for Grattan. The standard here is high. The conduct must be racially motivated, unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive environment. Ups argued the alleged incidents weren't severe or pervasive enough.

Speaker 1: 50:51

And the judge agreed.

Speaker 2: 50:52

Yes, summary judgment granted to defendant on the hostile work environment claims too. The judge acknowledged the comments like O'Rourke calling him boy from his remarks. Peterson's alleged slur were unacceptable but concluded they were dispersed in time and only occurred on a handful of occasions Compared to legal precedents involving regular, frequent slurs. The court found these incidents, while offensive, were legally insufficiently severe or pervasive to meet the high bar for a hostile work environment claim.

Speaker 1: 51:25

Wow, so both the discrimination and hostile environment claims were out. It sounds like his case was falling apart.

Speaker 2: 51:30

It might seem that way, but then came the retaliation claims, and here the outcome was different.

Speaker 1: 51:36

Okay, how did the retaliation claims fare? What's the standard there?

Speaker 2: 51:39

For retaliation, Gratton had to show three things One, he engaged in protected activity, like complaining about discrimination. Two, he suffered an adverse employment action, like being fired. And three, a causal connection between the two.

Speaker 1: 51:53

Did the court find he engaged in protected activity? Ups disputed some of his grievances counted right.

Speaker 2: 51:58

Right. Ups argued only the EDOC charge and the production quota grievance counted, as others weren't explicitly about race, but the court rejected UPS's narrow view. The judge found that the Jan 2021 and Sep 2021 grievances did count as protected activity too.

Speaker 1: 52:14

Why.

Speaker 2: 52:15

Because of the broader context Gratton helping other Black employees, his prior explicit complaints about Loomis' racial prejudice. The court interpreted mentions of favoritism in those later grievances as potentially related to race, given the history. So Gratton had multiple instances of protected activity close to his termination.

Speaker 1: 52:32

Right Protected activity established. Adverse action was the firing which UPS admitted. What about the causal connection?

Speaker 2: 52:40

The court found enough evidence for a potential causal link. First proximity in time His last grievance was in September 2021, just about a month before the termination process began in October. That's close enough to suggest a possible link.

Speaker 1: 52:52

And beyond just timing.

Speaker 2: 52:54

Yes, knowledge and potential pretext. The court pointed out Laird, the decision maker, admitted reviewing Gratton's recent grievance about favoritism, there was a genuine issue of material fact about Loomis' involvement in the termination process. He signed the letter and Fromhers, whom Gratton had conflicts with, was involved in getting the initial witness statement for the incident that led to the firing.

Speaker 1: 53:19

So the people he had accused were involved in the process that got him fired.

Speaker 2: 53:22

Potentially yes, and critically the court focused on the pretext argument the wildly different accounts of the October 19th incident combined with Lear drafting the termination letter before the investigation finished. The judge said this could lead reasonable minds to differ as to whether defendants' justification for plaintiff separation was pretextual.

Speaker 1: 53:42

Meaning reasonable people could disagree about whether the sexual harassment claim was the real reason or just an excuse.

Speaker 2: 53:47

Exactly that uncertainty, that factual dispute about the motive for the firing was enough. The court's ruling Summary judgment denied to defendant on the retaliation claims. So the retaliation claims survived. Proof is often indirect and depends heavily on witness credibility, which juries need to assess.

Speaker 1: 54:15

And because retaliation survived. What about the wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim?

Speaker 2: 54:21

That survived too. Summary judgment denied to defend it. Summary judgment denied to defend it Since it was based on similar facts firing someone for opposing discrimination violates public policy. It proceeded alongside the retaliation claim. Ok, so the retaliation and wrongful termination claims are heading to trial. What about the other affirmative defenses UPS raised? Did the judge deal with those like the scope of managerial authority? One yes, ups argued any bad acts by supervisors were outside their authority. The court said this wasn't technically an affirmative defense but treated it as a denial and denied summary judgment to plaintiff on this, meaning UPS could still try to argue it at trial. A genuine issue of material fact remained about whether Frumherst and Lemus actually had authority for tangible employment actions like firing, reassigning roads etc. So that question of corporate responsibility was still open for trial.

Speaker 1: 55:12

But what about the after-acquired evidence defense, the BBQ business and the alleged lies on his application? That sounded potentially damaging for Grattan.

Speaker 2: 55:21

This is where UPS took a major hit. The court granted summary judgment to plaintiff on this defense, meaning UPS could not use this defense at trial.

Speaker 1: 55:29

Wow, why not?

Speaker 2: 55:30

Because the court found UPS already knew about both alleged issues before they fired Gratton. They knew For the BBQ business From Hertz's own deposition apparently made it clear UPS was quite aware Gratton sold BBQ sauce on roofs. Everybody knew he did it out in the open, left cards on desks, gave samples, even shipped it while clocked in. It seemed widely known and unenforced.

Speaker 1: 55:53

So they couldn't pretend, they just found out later. What about the application issues, the fake reference?

Speaker 2: 55:58

Reference and prior termination. Theft allegations came in way back in October 2016, the month Grattan was hired and UPS records show they contacted the caller back then and stated we consider this matter closed.

Speaker 1: 56:13

They knew when they hired him and closed the matter.

Speaker 2: 56:16

Seems so. So the court said, since UPS had knowledge of both facts prior to plaintiff's discharge, they couldn't possibly use after-acquired evidence as a defense. Huge blow to UPS's potential damage limitation strategy.

Speaker 1: 56:29

That's fascinating. Okay, what about mitigation of damages? The argument Grattan didn't try hard enough to find another job.

Speaker 2: 56:35

That defense got dismissed too. Summary judgment granted to plaintiff. The court found UPS, who had the burden of proof, failed to produce any evidence showing that substantially equivalent jobs were available that Gratton could have gotten. They needed to show such jobs existed, not just criticize Gratton's choice of self-employment.

Speaker 1: 56:54

So UPS didn't meet their burden of proof on that one. What about punitive damages? Could Gratton still seek those at trial?

Speaker 2: 57:01

Yes, ups argued he shouldn't be able to, but the court denied summary judgment to defendant on punitive damages. To get punitive damages under Section 1981, gratton would need to show UPS acted with malice or with reckless indifference to his rights. The court found material issues of fact pervade as to what agents had a role in plaintiff's termination and the seniority of those persons, meaning a jury would get to decide if the conduct was bad enough and if high enough level people were involved to warrant punitive damages.

Speaker 1: 57:31

OK, let's quickly recap the outcome of that crucial summary judgment order. It really shaped the rest of the case.

Speaker 2: 57:37

Absolutely so. Bottom line Gratton's claims for direct discrimination and hostile work environment dismissed. They wouldn't go to trial. But a whole bunch of UPS's key affirmative defenses were also dismissed, things like administrative exhaustion, which UPS conceded anyway, statute of limitations, latches, preemption waiver and estoppel the big one after acquired evidence and mitigation of damages. All those shields were taken away from UPS before trial.

Speaker 2: 58:06

And most importantly, Most importantly, Grattan's claims for retaliation under both state and federal law and wrongful termination in violation of public policy survived. They remained open and were set to proceed to a full jury trial.

Speaker 1: 58:19

So the central question for the trial became was Grattan fired in retaliation for complaining about racial discrimination and helping others, or was it genuinely because of the alleged assault incident?

Speaker 2: 58:29

Precisely the focus narrowed dramatically to that core issue of pretext and retaliatory motive.

Speaker 1: 58:34

Which brings us, finally, to the resolution, the final judgment. What does that document tell us?

Speaker 2: 58:39

OK, so the final judgment document is dated November 15th 2024. It contains language that might seem a bit confusing at first glance. How so? It states that defendants renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law ECF number 243, is granted.

Speaker 1: 58:56

Granted A defense motion granted. That sounds like UPS 1.

Speaker 2: 59:00

It does sound that way initially. Right A judgment as a matter of law, gmo. Often happens if a judge decides, even after hearing all the evidence at trial, that no reasonable jury could possibly find for the other side. So granting defense JML usually means the plaintiff loses. But I sense another, but A huge but. Because despite granting that defense motion and the exact procedural reason isn't detailed in our summary, the judgment also states completely unequivocally judgment entered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $39,600,000 against defendant United Parcel Service Inc $39.6 million for the plaintiff.

Speaker 2: 59:35

For the plaintiff Tavio Gratton, and it orders post-judgment interest on that amount too, at 4.29% per year starting from the judgment date.

Speaker 1: 59:43

So how does that work? A defense motion is granted, but the plaintiff gets nearly $40 million.

Speaker 2: 59:49

It's legally complex and without seeing the full context of that specific JMOL motion, it's hard to say exactly. Perhaps the JMOL was granted on a very narrow, specific legal point or particular type of damage, but it didn't overturn the jury's fundamental finding of liability on the core retaliation and wrongful termination claims.

Speaker 2: 1:00:08

So the bottom line is despite that procedural nuance, the bottom line is an absolutely massive financial victory for Tavia Grattan. It strongly implies that the claims that survived summary judgment the retaliation and wrongful termination claims were ultimately successful at trial, leading a jury to award this staggering amount, likely including significant compensatory and possibly punitive damages.

Speaker 1: 1:00:28

Wow. Ok, so that's the journey through the legal documents. An incredible story with a stunning outcome. What are the key takeaways here? What does this deep dive mean for you, our listener?

Speaker 2: 1:00:38

Well, first, I think it really highlights the nuance of legal victory, doesn't it? Gratton had his discrimination and hostile environment claims dismissed at summary judgment. That could have seemed like a major loss.

Speaker 1: 1:00:50

Right Half his case gone before trial.

Speaker 2: 1:00:52

Exactly. Yet he still proceeded to this absolute, resounding victory. On the other claims retaliation and wrongful termination. It shows that these legal battles are complex, fought on multiple fronts. Winning one part doesn't mean you win everything. But, critically, losing one part doesn't mean you lose entirely either. You have to find the path where the evidence is strongest.

Speaker 1: 1:01:12

That leads to another point, doesn't it? The power of documentation and just sheer persistence.

Speaker 2: 1:01:18

Absolutely crucial here. Think about how consistently Gratton filed those grievances and complaints. Even when they were initially dismissed or met with alleged indifference, he kept documenting.

Speaker 1: 1:01:29

And those documents became the evidence.

Speaker 2: 1:01:31

They became the backbone of his protected activity Claims, the very claims that ultimately succeeded where the direct discrimination ones didn't. It really raises a question for anyone listening how meticulously do you document important workplace interactions? That paper trail proved vital here.

Speaker 1: 1:01:50

It really did. What about the employer side? What lessons are there for companies like UPS?

Speaker 2: 1:01:55

Well, look at how the court dismissed UPS's after-acquired evidence defense. Why? Because the company, or at least its agents, knew about the alleged misconduct the BBQ sauce, the application issues long before they fired him.

Speaker 1: 1:02:10

They couldn't claim ignorance later.

Speaker 2: 1:02:11

Right and the questions about managerial authority for tangible employment actions also remained live issues. It underscores how hard it can be for large companies to legally distance themselves from the actions or knowledge of their supervisors and managers. It highlights the massive importance of having clear internal policies, training and critically conducting thorough, unbiased internal investigations.

Speaker 1: 1:02:34

Especially when the investigators admit they didn't talk to key witnesses.

Speaker 2: 1:02:38

Exactly when internal knowledge or flawed processes contradict the company's later legal defenses, it puts them in a very difficult position.

Speaker 1: 1:02:46

And then there's the obvious takeaway, the sheer cost.

Speaker 2: 1:02:49

Yeah, you can't ignore that. This case is a stark demonstration of the extraordinary financial implications when workplace disputes, especially those involving alleged discrimination and retaliation, aren't managed effectively or resolved early on. $39.6 million is Well. It's a powerful reminder of the potential consequences. It's a massive potential cost of not addressing these issues properly.

Speaker 1: 1:03:13

It really is. And finally, I think this whole process shows the value of doing a deep dive like this right, Going beyond just the headline number.

Speaker 2: 1:03:21

Definitely On the surface, this is just a news story. Former UPS driver awarded $39.6 million Quick summary. But by actually digging into the surface this is just a news story, Former UPS driver awarded $39.6 million Quick summary. But by actually digging into the complaint, the answer, the detailed summary judgment order, we get a much richer, more detailed, more nuanced understanding.

Speaker 1: 1:03:37

You see the conflicting narratives, the specific pieces of evidence, the judge's reasoning, the surprising details, like the after-acquired evidence dismissal.

Speaker 2: 1:03:45

Exactly. It's about seeing the full, complex picture, the human factors, the systemic issues, the legal arguments, rather than just accepting a simplified version. You understand the why behind the what's. So as we wrap up this deep dive into Tavio Gratton versus UPS and we look at that staggering $39.6 million judgment, it leaves us with a really provocative thought to consider what's that? What does this massive figure truly represent? Is it for a company the size of UPS just another, albeit very large, cost of doing business? Or does it signify something more profound, a message about real accountability in the workplace?

Speaker 1: 1:04:24

Accountability for actions that go way beyond just simple disagreements. Right Actions impacting individual lives, livelihoods, dignity.

Speaker 2: 1:04:30

Exactly? Does this judgment signal a shift, maybe Setting precedence for how companies absolutely must address these deep-seated, difficult issues like race and retaliation, or face potentially devastating consequences? Is it just money or is it a message?

Speaker 1: 1:04:45

Something definitely for all of us to think about. Thank you for joining us on this deep dive into a truly significant and complex legal battle.

Speaker 2: 1:04:51

We'll see you next time.