# Whitlock v. United Parcel Services Inc

> District Court, N.D. Alabama · September 10, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11136203

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Alabama
- **Decided:** September 10, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11136203

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
WESLEY WHITLOCK, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-843-CLS
)
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, )
INC., )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Wesley Whitlock, began employment with defendant, United Parcel
Service, Inc. (“UPS”), in 2005. He then was classified as a “preloader” in the
company’s package operation. He later occupied the position of “customer counter
clerk.” Following a company-wide reorganization in January of 2023, however, he
returned to UPS’s package operation as a “loader/unloader.” Plaintiff’s complaint
alleges that, after he filed a grievance against his manager, Chuck Sims, he was
“harassed, bullied, and intimidated.”1 The complaint does not divulge the substance
of plaintiff’s grievance, but he asserts a claim of retaliation against UPS under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. This opinion
addresses UPS’s motion for summary judgment. Doc. no. 28.2
1 Doc. no. 1 (Complaint) ¶ 12.
2 As part of the motion for summary judgment, UPS asked the court for a conclusive finding
that plaintiff did not have an objectively reasonable belief that UPS violated his rights under the
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
As an initial matter, the court notes that plaintiff failed to comply with the

requirements for briefs contained in section D of Exhibit II to the “ALND Uniform
Initial Order Governing All Further Proceedings” entered as document number 8 in
this case on July 26, 2024. The court’s clear and explicit instructions in that Order

required plaintiff to identify, in separately numbered paragraphs: any disputes with
defendant’s claimed undisputed facts; additional undisputed facts, if any; and,
additional disputed facts, if any. Despite those instructions, the entirety of plaintiff’s
response to defendant’s statement of facts reads as follows:

Wesley Whitlock has been a union employee at UPS since 2005.
He worked as a customer counter clerk for ten years before being
displaced by another employee with more seniority due to the “Clerical
Optimization Project.”
During his time at UPS, Mr. Whitlock engaged in protected
activity including multiple grievances against his supervisor Chuck
Sims. On December 4, 2023, he expressed grievances that included a
dispute with Business Manager Chuck Sims over the handling of a
package, the availability of supplies for customers at the counter —
matters implicating wage compensation and customer service policies.
On December 19, 2023, he filed a grievance over being denied an
overtime opportunity under the [Collective Bargaining Agreement]’s
seniority provisions, for which he was subsequently compensated.
Mr. Whitlock testified during his deposition to additional actions
by Mr. Sims, including the unexplained removal of the employee rights
FLSA as a sanction for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s previous sanctions order. Doc.
no. 28 (Defendant United Parcel Service Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in
Support), at 4-5. The court denied that request in the order entered on May 28, 2025. Doc. no. 35.
2
bulletin board from its customary location and the concealment of bid
sheets that affect access to additional paid work opportunities (Whitlock
Depo. P. 12, L28-30).[3]
Whitlock also testified that Sims routinely singled him out during
meetings, and that these confrontations caused him significant distress
and were perceived as retaliation for his complaints (Whitlock Depo.
p.12, L30-31).
Doc. no. 36 (Plaintiff’s Opposition to Summary Judgment), at 1-2 (some citations
omitted) (alteration supplied).
Plaintiff’s response does not controvert defendant’s statement of undisputed
facts in any meaningful respect. Accordingly, defendant’s undisputed statement of
material facts is deemed to be admitted by plaintiff for summary judgment purposes.
See doc. no. 8 (ALND Uniform Initial Order Governing All Further Proceedings,

entered July 26, 2024), App’x II, § D.2.a. (“All material facts set forth in the statement
required by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted for summary judgment
purposes unless controverted by the response of the party opposing summary
judgment.”) (emphasis in original). Further, defendant’s undisputed statement of

material facts contained in section III of its brief in support of its motion for summary
judgment is adopted in full.4 Even so, the court has reviewed the entire record, and
the following summary of the factual background is provided as context for discussion

3 The citation referenced in text, as well as the following one, is incorrrect. The referenced
deposition page contains only 25 lines. See doc. no. 28-2 (Plaintiff dep.), at 12.
4 Doc. no. 28 (Defendant United Parcel Service Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment &
Brief in Support), at 5-10.
3
of plaintiff’s claims.
As stated previously, plaintiff began employment with UPS in 2005 in the

capacity of a “preloader” in the Florence, Alabama UPS center.5 He has been a
member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the labor union that represents
defendant’s hourly employees, throughout his employment at UPS.6 A collective

bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the Teamsters and UPS governs the terms
and conditions of employment for bargaining unit employees.7 The CBA guarantees
part-time employees, such as plaintiff, three-and-one-half hours of work for each
shift.8

Plaintiff became a “customer counter clerk” in 2013, and held that position until
January of 2023. At that time, and as the result of a clerical reorganization program
implemented by UPS, plaintiff returned to his previous position as a part-time
package loader.9

Chuck Sims was the manager of the Florence Center from 2021 until his

5 Doc. no. 28-2 (Plaintiff dep.), at 19.
6 Id. at 20.
7 Doc. no. 28-3 (Robinson decl.) ¶ 3.
8 Doc. no. 28-3 (Teamsters Southern Region and United Parcel Service Supplemental
Agreement to the National Master United Parcel Service Agreement), art. 49, at ECF 55.
9 That program eliminated certain positions and allowed employees to bid on the remaining
positions based upon their seniority, in accordance with the CBA between the union and UPS. An
employee with higher seniority displaced Whitlock from the customer counter clerk position. See
doc. no. 28-2 (Plaintiff dep.), at 25-26.
4
retirement during 2024.10 Other full-time and part-time supervisors, including part-
time supervisor Khamari Brown, who was plaintiff’s supervisor, reported to Sims.11

Plaintiff filed four grievances during his employment with UPS. Each
grievance was filed after January 2023: the month during which plaintiff returned to
the loader/unloader position. However, plaintiff’s brief in response to defendant’s

motion for summary judgment addresses only the grievances that he filed on
December 4 and December 19, 2023.12
Plaintiff’s December 4, 2023 grievance grew from a warning notice that Chuck
Sims issued to plaintiff on November 29, 2023.13 The notice admonished plaintiff for

his “failure to treat [his] supervisor with dignity and respect,” and informed him that
further instances of similar conduct would result in disciplinary action.14 Plaintiff
explained his December 4, 2023 grievance, and the circumstances that precipitated the

warning notice, as follows:
I was getting a box from the mechanic. He always saves his boxes
for me at [the] customer counter. When Chuck [Sims] appeared he told
me we don’t box up [packages] here. All I said to him was we can now
10 Doc. no. 28-1(Sims decl.) ¶ 2.
11 Id. ¶¶ 5-6.
12 Plaintiff filed a grievance on April 26, 2023, complaining that local sort supervisor
Khamari Brown “disrespected” him and “called [him] out in front of [his] coworkers.” Doc. no. 28-
3 (Apr. 26, 2023 Grievance), at ECF 119 (alterations supplied). He also filed a grievance on June
7, 2023, again complaining about Brown’s behavior toward him. Doc. no. 28-3 (June 7, 2023), at
ECF 121. Neither of those complaints related to violations of FLSA.
13 Doc. no. 28-3 (“Warning Notice Under Article 52 of Labor Agreement”), at ECF 127.
14 Id.
5
scan the Amazon Return codes then he said to send my customers to the
UPS store. I never boxed up any amazon [packages]. I have used packs
to put them in. I didn’t disrespect him what so ever.
Doc. no. 28-3 (Dec. 4, 2023 Grievance), at ECF 121 (alterations supplied). He further
stated:
I am so tired of being singled out and definitely being retaliated against
when I have done nothing wrong. I have been asking for a remedy
sought for over 8 months now but still getting targeted. Protest of
warning letter.
Id.
Sims, however, stated in his declaration that he issued the warning notice
because he “heard [plaintiff] cursing at his supervisor, Khamari Brown, while working
on the belt.”15 Even so, Sims related his version of the incident described in plaintiff’s

grievance as follows:
On December 4, 2023, I observed [plaintiff, Wesley] Whitlock taking a
box to the customer counter. Whitlock and others had a habit of bringing
empty used boxes for customers to box up packages in, but on more than
one occasion, they distributed boxes with the word “hazmat” on them —
a potential problem for our customers because they could be perceived
as transporting hazardous goods, which is a federal violation. I had told
our clerks to stop giving empty boxes to customers after this. On this
specific date, I also recall that the customer who came in had a code that
would have given them a free box from the UPS store, so I told Whitlock
to advise the customer to go to the UPS store instead. Whitlock became
upset and filed a grievance against me for this.
Doc. no. 28-1 (Sims decl.), ¶ 14 (alteration supplied).
15 Doc. no. 28-1 (Sims decl.), ¶ 13.
6
Plaintiff filed another grievance on December 19, 2023, in which he stated the
following:

I was never informed about working Saturday [December 16,
2023]. They told another clerk with less seniority [to] work over 8
hours. That was supposed to be my work.
Doc. no. 28-3 (Dec. 19, 2023 Grievance), at ECF 125 (alterations supplied). That
grievance related to defendant’s practice of adding shifts during the company’s peak
season. Supervisors may ask employees to perform “extra work” during those shifts
in order to manage the increased volume of packages.16 The CBA requires “extra
work” to be assigned according to seniority,17 but on December 16th, an employee

named “Brandon” who had less seniority than plaintiff worked the extra shift.18 Even
so, plaintiff ultimately received 7.5 hours of pay, even though he did not actually work
on that date.19

Apart from his contention that he should have been afforded the opportunity to
work on Saturday, December 16th, plaintiff did not complain to UPS about his wages
or hours.20 Plaintiff confirmed that he was paid at least his regular pay rate, which
exceeded the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, for each hour of compensable

16 See id. ¶ 15.
17 Doc. no. 28-3 (Teamsters Southern Region and United Parcel Service Supplemental
Agreement to the National Master United Parcel Service Agreement), art. 49, at ECF 55.
18 Doc. no. 28-2 (Plaintiff dep.), at 38.
19 Id. at 38, 60.
20 Id. at 60.
7
work that he performed.21 Plaintiff also admitted that he had never worked more than
forty hours during a workweek; and, that, therefore, that he was not entitled to

overtime pay under the FLSA during the time period relevant to this lawsuit.22
Finally, plaintiff has never participated in an FLSA-related investigation.23
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that a court “shall grant summary
judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In
other words, summary judgment is proper “after adequate time for discovery and upon

motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear
the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “In

making this determination, the court must review all evidence and make all reasonable
inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.” Chapman v. AI
Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Haves v. City of
Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir. 1995)). Inferences in favor of the non-moving

21 Doc. no. 28-2 (Plaintiff’s Admissions), at Nos. 6 & 7. Plaintiff was paid an hourly rate
of $23.02 during 2022, $24.84 during 2023, and $29.09 during 2024. Doc. no. 28-2 (Pay Stub
Excerpts), at ECF 158-60.
22 Doc. no. 28-2 (Plaintiff dep.) at 72.
23 Id. at 119.
8
party are not unqualified, however. “[A]n inference is not reasonable if it is only a
guess or a possibility, for such an inference is not based on the evidence, but is pure

conjecture and speculation.” Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321,
1324 (11th Cir. 1983) (alteration supplied). Moreover,
[t]he mere existence of some factual dispute will not defeat summary
judgment unless that factual dispute is material to an issue affecting the
outcome of the case. The relevant rules of substantive law dictate the
materiality of a disputed fact. A genuine issue of material fact does not
exist unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for
a reasonable jury to return a verdict in its favor.
Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1023 (quoting Haves, 52 F.3d at 921) (alteration and emphasis
supplied). See also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251–52 (1986)
(asking “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require
submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a
matter of law”).
III. DISCUSSION
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201

et seq., establishes
minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and youth employment
standards affecting employees in the private sector and in Federal, State,
and local governments. Covered nonexempt workers are entitled to a
minimum wage of not less than $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.
Overtime pay at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular
rate of pay is required after 40 hours of work in a workweek.
9
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Wage and Hour Division, Wages and the Fair Labor
Standards Act, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa (last visited Aug. 14, 2025);

see also 29 U.S.C. § 206 (minimum wage); id. § 207 (overtime pay); id. § 211
(recordkeeping); id. § 212 (youth employment standards).
The FLSA also prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee

“because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted
any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify
in any such proceeding.” 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). That provision has been interpreted
to encompass employee complaints, either written or oral, submitted to the employer

about perceived FLSA violations. See Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics
Corp., 563 U.S. 1, 14 (2011) (“To fall within the scope of the [FLSA] antiretaliation
provision, a complaint must be sufficiently clear and detailed for a reasonable

employer to understand it, in light of both content and context, as an assertion of
rights protected by the statute and a call for their protection. This standard can be
met, however, by oral complaints, as well as by written ones.”) (alteration and
emphasis supplied).

As with other federal employment statutes, courts apply a burden shifting
framework to analyze FLSA claims. See Wolf v. Coca-Cola Co., 200 F.3d 1337,
1342-43 (11th Cir. 2000). To establish a prima facie case under the FLSA anti-

10
retaliation provision, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he engaged in activity protected
under the FLSA; (2) he subsequently suffered an adverse action by the employer; and

(3) there was a causal connection between his protected activity and the adverse
action. See id.
Plaintiff’s case fails at the first step. The grievances that plaintiff filed on

December 4 and December 19, 2023, do not reference the FLSA. More importantly,
the grievances simply do not relate to perceived violations of the FLSA — i.e., they
do not concern minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, or child labor. In other
words, the grievances were not sufficiently clear and detailed for a reasonable

employer to understand, in light of both content and context, that each was an
assertion of rights protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act and a call for their
protection. Kasten, 563 U.S. at 14. Moreover, there is no evidence that plaintiff ever

complained to UPS, either in writing or orally, about any matter within the ambit of
the FLSA.
Plaintiff argues that “Whitlock’s December 4 and December 19 grievances
involved complaints about denied overtime and mistreatment surrounding job

functions that directly impacted compensation.”24 Plaintiff’s first point is not factually
accurate. His December 19th grievance complained that he was passed over for the

24 Doc. no. 36 (Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment), at 3.
11
opportunity for extra work, not overtime hours, on December 16th. Plaintiff’s
assertion that the grievance was “tantamount to a complaint about being deprived of
wages” falls flat, because he ultimately was compensated for 7.5 hours that he did not,
in fact, work. The FLSA regulates proper compensation of employees for hours that
they actually work and, therefore, plaintiff's grievance did not implicate its
provisions.
Plaintiff's second contention — that his dispute with Sims about providing
customers with boxes “directly impacted compensation” — compels a logical leap
too far. Plaintiff does not explain the connection, if any there is, between Sims’s
directive and any matter regulated by the FLSA.
In short, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he engaged in activity protected by
the FLSA — a requisite element of his claim. Accordingly, his claim of retaliation
based upon that statute cannot proceed.
IV. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
due to be granted. A separate order consistent with this memorandum opinion will be
entered contemporaneously herewith.
DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of September, 2025.
puend ofl

12

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11136203. Public record. Not legal advice.