Teresa Watts hurt her back badly while working for UPS in April, 1999. She received workers compensation benefits, medical treatment and was off work for about two years. As her condition improved, she applied to return to work with UPS through its Temporary Alternative Work (TAW) program. UPS rejected her application, claiming that she was not qualified for the program based on criteria for it in a collective bargaining agreement. Watts then sued UPS under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), along with other claims, alleging disability discrimination. At the close of Watts' proof in the third trial of the case, the district court granted UPS judgment as a matter of law, holding that Watts' ADA claim was preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), because it required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.
The Sixth Circuit, in an opinion authored by Circuit Judge Helene White joined by Judges Jeffrey Sutton and Richard Griffin, reversed and remanded for a new trial, which will be the fourth trial in Watts' case. Watts v. UPS, No. 11-3480 (December 12, 2012). first, the court observed that the purpose of the preemption doctrine was to "ensure that federal labor law uniformly prevails over inconsistent interpretations of CBAs by state courts." Since Watts' ADA claim was a federal law claim before a federal court, the "motivating purpose" of the preemption doctrine "does not apply." Second, Watts' ADA claim "is a separate, statutorily created federal cause of action independent from a CBA-based contract claim under the LMRA." And so the case was remanded for yet another trial.
Watts' case was initially filed in 2003. This decision is the second time that the sixth circuit has reversed a judgment as a matter of wall branded by the district court to UPS on Watts' ADA claim. In 2010, on Watts' prior appeal the Sixth Circuit ruled that she had presented sufficient proof to sustain a jury verdict in her favor and that the judgment as a matter of law in UPS's favor was error. Watts v. UPS, 378 Fed.Appx. 520 (6th Cir. 2010). That Watts' has persisted this long is a testament to her tenacity and gumption and one to the skill, tenacity and gumption of her lawyer, Marc Mezibov of Cincinnati. Perhaps this long-running case will get concluded and justice done for Watts within 10 years of her filing suit.
Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com
