Cindy Carroll v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 02-4306
CINDY CARROLL
Appellant
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.
Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 01-cv-00703)
District Judge: Honorable Gary L. Lancaster
Argued July 23, 2003
Before: ALITO, FUENTES, and BECKER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: August 6, 2003)
Richard A. Porach, Esquire (Argued)
Hodzic & Parach LLC
Suite 308
1100 Washington Avenue
Carnegie, PA
Attorney for Appellant

-- 1 of 5 --

2
David J. McAllister, Esquire (Argued)
Susan P. Schupansky
Reed Smith LLP
435 Sixth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Attorneys for Appellees
OPINION OF THE COURT
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by Cindy Carroll from the District Court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of the defendant United Parcel Service (“UPS”) in a case brought
pursuant to Title VII (with pendent claims under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act) in
which Carroll claims that she was terminated from her job as a feeder truck driver because
of her gender. UPS maintains that Carroll was fired in the wake of her failure to report an
accident (knocking over a light pole) that had occurred while she was driving the feeder
truck (UPS drivers are required to report all accidents); in particular, UPS submits that
Carroll acted dishonestly by not accepting responsibility for her failure to report the
accident when confronted with evidence suggesting that she had been in an accident.
Carroll has always maintained that she was not involved in the accident and that UPS
did not conduct a thorough investigation of the incident because of her gender. She also
claims that male UPS employees suspected of dishonesty were dealt with less harshly than
she was in that they were allowed to keep their jobs in spite of the dishonesty. We heard
extensive oral argument during which all aspects of the case were explored. Accordingly

-- 2 of 5 --

3
we shall limit our discussion to our ratio decidendi.
We conclude that the District Court did not err by granting UPS’s motion for
summary judgment. While Carroll has presented evidence of male employees who were
not terminated when they failed to report truck accidents, those incidents are
distinguishable because the employees admitted wrong-doing once confronted. Moreover,
UPS has presented evidence of male employees who were terminated for dishonesty.
Furthermore, Carroll has failed to provide any evidence of any other female employees
fired under similar circumstances. We are also unpersuaded by Carroll’s contention that
she was not involved in the accident (this matter was explored in detail at oral argument).
To the contrary, there was abundant evidence that she was and we are satisfied that no
reasonable juror could conclude that UPS did not reasonably believe that Carroll was being
dishonest when she denied it.
We also conclude that the District Court did not err by limiting the scope of
Carroll’s discovery request. Carroll had requested all of the disciplinary reports of all UPS
employees (UPS has over 300,000 employees nationwide) over a period of 12 years. The
District Court limited discovery to a period of five years in the UPS district in which
Carroll was employed (one of 60 in the nation), a large area consisting of western
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and one county in Maryland. In particular, it was not an abuse
of discretion for the District Court to limit discovery since the employment decision that
Carroll alleged was discriminatory (her termination) was made locally.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

-- 3 of 5 --

4

-- 4 of 5 --

5
TO THE CLERK:
Kindly file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Edward R. Becker
Circuit Judge

-- 5 of 5 --