Denise Shipman v. UPS, No. 13-2501 (4th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2501 DENISE SHIPMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:12-cv-00589-F) Submitted: June 30, 2014 Decided: August 5, 2014 Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sandra J. Polin, LAW OFFICE OF SANDRA J. POLIN, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Charles A. Gartland, II, ALSTON & BIRD, LLP, Washington, DC; Molly M. Jones, ALSTON & BIRD, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Denise Shipman appeals the district court s order granting summary judgment to her former employer, the United Parcel Service, Inc. ( UPS ), on her claims of race, gender, and age discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ( Title VII ), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended ( ADEA ), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2012). The district court also granted summary judgment to UPS on Shipman s claims that UPS retaliated environment. against her and fostered a hostile work We affirm. We review de novo a district court s order granting summary judgment. 2011). genuine Summary dispute Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir. judgment as to is any appropriate material where fact entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 56(a). and there the is no movant is Fed. R. Civ. P. At the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a genuine dispute as to those facts. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). A district court should grant summary judgment unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. (1986). Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 Conclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice, 2 nor does a mere scintilla nonmoving party s] case. 312 F.3d 645, 649 of evidence in support of [the Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). First, determination Shipman that she contests failed to the district exhaust her court s administrative remedies with respect to her claims of retaliation and hostile work environment. However, because Shipman s charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ) described only a single act of age, race, and sex discrimination, conclude that the district court was correct. Calvert Group, Ltd., 551 F.3d 297, 300-01 we See Jones v. (4th Cir. 2009); Chacko v. Patuxent Inst., 429 F.3d 505, 508-09 (4th Cir. 2005). Also without merit is Shipman s suggestion that the district court erred in finding her claims of discriminatory treatment untimely to the extent they were based on disciplinary terminations Shipman s misplaced three Shipman reliance because discrete experienced on her acts the March continuing disparate of in August violation treatment allegedly and claims discriminatory 2011. theory is depended on discipline. Holland v. Wash. Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 219-20 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Nat l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113-14 (2002). 3 Finally, we reject Shipman s contention that she was entitled to proceed to trial on her claim that discharge in January 2012 was discriminatory. produced no motivated direct her considered final her evidence that termination, claims under the final Because Shipman discrimination the her district of any court burden-shifting type properly framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973). 354 F.3d Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 277, 284-85 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (discussing framework); see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142-49 (2000); Mereish v. Walker, 359 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2004). Assuming here, as the district court did, that Shipman established a prima facie case, we agree that the evidence was insufficient to suggest Shipman s January pretext 2012 in UPS s stated reasons discharge--namely for dishonesty, falsification of records, and overall performance. Shipman s vague recounting of her brief conversations with several coworkers did not adequately indicate that UPS had cited them for immediately terminable misconduct comparable precipitating Shipman s final discharge. N. Am., Inc., 252 F.3d 307, 314-15 & to that See Hill v. Michelin n.3 (4th Cir. 2001). Moreover, standing alone, the fact that a grievance panel later concluded that dishonesty should 4 not have been a basis for Shipman s discharge does not suggest pretext. See DeJarnette v. Corning Inc., 133 F.3d 293, 298-99 (4th Cir. 1998). Similarly, Shipman s brief allusion to evidence that she, at times, had disputes with or was mistreated by her various supervisors is unavailing, as such incidents are not generally probative of discrimination. See Love-Lane v. Martin, 355 F.3d 766, 788-89 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.