Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—N.D. Ala.: Former UPS employee, denied Saturday work, failed to establish FLSA retaliation, (Sep 12, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

He filed four grievances during his employment with UPS, two of which were at issue.

A former employee of United Parcel Service who filed four union grievances against the employer, including one grievance concerning the denial of allegedly contractually guaranteed work—for which he was nonetheless paid—on one Saturday, cannot establish FLSA retaliation, a federal district court found. The grievances at issue 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 FLSA and a call for their protection, and there was no evidence that the employee ever complained to UPS, either in writing or orally, about any matter within the ambit of the FLSA (Whitlock v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-843-CLS (N.D. Ala. Sept. 10, 2025)).

Began as “preloader.” The plaintiff began employment with United Parcel Service (UPS) in 2005 in the capacity of a “preloader” in the Florence, Alabama UPS center.

Union member and contractual work guarantees. He has been a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the union that represents UPS’s hourly employees, throughout his employment at UPS. A labor contract, in turn, between the Teamsters and UPS governs the terms and conditions of employment for bargaining unit employees. It guarantees part-time employees, such as the plaintiff, three-and-one-half hours of work for each shift.

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

Four grievances, two at issue. He filed four grievances during his employment with UPS. Each grievance was filed after January 2023, the month during which he returned to the loader/unloader position. However, his brief in response to the employer’s motion for summary judgment addressed only the grievances he filed on December 4 and December 19, 2023.

December 4 grievance. His December 4, 2023, grievance grew from a warning notice that his manager issued to him on November 29, 2023. It had admonished him 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.

The employee complained in the grievance of being “targeted” by the manager, and the manager stated in his declaration that he issued the warning notice because he “heard [plaintiff] cursing at his supervisor, [Supervisor], while working on the belt.”

Second grievance at issue. Another grievance was filed by the employee on December 19, 2023, in which he stated, “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.”

The second grievance related to the employer’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, and the labor contract requires “extra work” to be assigned according to seniority. On December 16, however, according to the grievance, an employee who had less seniority than the plaintiff worked the extra shift. Even so, according to the court, the plaintiff ultimately received 7.5 hours of pay despite not working on that date.

No additional wage-hour complaints. Apart from his contention that he should have been afforded the opportunity to work on Saturday, December 16, noted the court, the employee did not complain to UPS about his wages or hours. He 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 work he performed, and he also admitted that he had never worked more than 40 hours during a workweek; and, that, therefore, that he was not entitled to overtime under the FLSA during the period relevant to the lawsuit. Finally, he has never participated in an FLSA-related investigation, noted the court.

FLSA retaliation. To establish a prima facie case under the FLSA anti-retaliation provision, the court first observed, 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.”

His case, the court concluded, failed at the first step. The grievances the employee filed on December 4 and December 19, 2023, did not reference the FLSA, and more importantly, they did not relate to perceived violations of the FLSA, said the court. They did not concern the minimum wage, overtime pay, wage-hour 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.” And finally, noted the court, there was no evidence that the employee ever complained to UPS, either in writing or orally, about any matter within the ambit of the FLSA.

The case is No. 3:24-cv-843-CLS.

Judge: Smith, C.

Attorneys: Lucas Charles Snodgrass (Law Offices of Lucas Charles Snodgrass) for Wesley Whitlock. Dana Bolden Hill (Hill Carter Franco Cole & Black) for United Parcel Services Inc.

Companies: United Parcel Services Inc.

Cases: WageHour Retaliation Procedure AlabamaNews