Randy's case was heard in Federal Court during May of 2003. Randy lost due to the judge disallowing crucial evidence.

The Federal Judge failed to follow the instructions of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. She consistently denied the use of evidence that was favorable to Randy and allowed evidence that was biased to United Parcel Service.

Randy's case has again been referred to The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for the above reasons. A decision is expected at the end of 2003.

Depositions taken in the Randy Olson case are now available (click below).  It is very interesting reading particularly Marty Frates, Business agent at Local 70 and Member of the UPS National Grievance Panel.  He has apparently a very poor memory of what he does. Because of his memory lapses someone on Teamster.net said, "he needs to double up on his Ginko Baloba".

Sounds good so far, But wait. After a fancy tap dance by Local 70 officials, whiz bang Randy's case was heard before the Joint Council 7 and UPS grievance panel.

In the face of overwhelming evidence that UPS was in violation

We the friends of Randy Olson have created this fund to pay legal expenses and help him and his family with his financial needs through this time of crisis until justice prevails and his job  is restored.

Randy was I.B.T. Vice President Chuck Mack's opponent in the 1995 Secretary-Treasure election at Oakland's Teamsters Local 70.

DO NOT SEND ANY MORE MONEY! 
We have achieved our goal. 

Thank you for your generosity. Thank you for your very supportive e-mail from the U.S., Canada and one from Switzerland. We would like to hear from Teamsters outside of North America, too. 

It has become clear that Randy is not the only person having problems at UPS and getting less than adequate representation from their Locals.   Thank you for the revealing information that you have sent us. This information shall prove valuable in Randy's case and in the future. 

Again, DON'T SEND ANY MORE MONEY but Keep the information coming. The more information we get the stronger Randy's case becomes.  And, the greater the impact it will have in the deterrence to illegal and unethical behavior at UPS and to less then forthright Local Officials throughout the Teamsters. Information will prove to be the most helpful. 

Thank You, 

The Friends of Randy Olson 

P.S. Congratulations Randy on your appointment to the Alameda County Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee to the Board of Supervisors (HCDAC). Your work to provide housing for low income families, your work to stop discrimination in the workplace, workers rights advocacy, work with children and working to make the Teamsters better for everyone is most appreciated. This appointment is well deserved in recognition for your selfless achievements over the years. Thank You!

Background Information
The following letters help define Mr. Olson's case:

To Teamster Election Officer March 6, 1998
Information request August 24, 1998
To Teamster Election Officer September 10, 1998
To Teamster Election Officer September 28, 1998
To Teamster Election Officer October 12, 1998
Questionnaire filed with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

Lawsuit Filed in Federal Court
The following Lawsuit was filed on behalf of Randy Olson by his prominent San Francisco Attorney Christopher Katzenbach, the son of Nicholas Katzenbach former Attorney General of the United States during the Johnson Administration.  The Suit was filed against United Parcel Service and Chuck Mack's, Teamsters Local 70 in Oakland, California.  Mr. Mack is Secretary Treasure of local 70, President of Joint Council 7 and West Coast Vice President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.  Randy was Mr. Mack's opponent in the 1995 Secretary Treasure Election. Are Teamsters Local 70's actions retaliatory against Mr. Olson?  You be the judge!  The Suit is self explanatory.

Teamster.net Bulletin Board
Postings regarding the Randy Olson case.

Teamster.net Bulletin Board - Posted Responses to Randy's Case.

Teamster.net Bulletin Board - Post and responses regarding Randy's Local 70 Business Agent Marty Frates Appointment to the UPS National Grievance Panel by Mr. Hoffa.

Local 70 Stewards Committee: Defends Mr. Hoffa, Mr. Mack and Marty Frates on Teamster.net Bulletin Board.

Friends of Local 70:  Offering defense of the actions of UPS and Local 70.

Teamster.net Bulletin Board - Post and responses regarding Randy's Local 70 Business Agent Marty Frates Appointment to the UPS National Grievance Panel by Mr. Hoffa.

Attorney for Plaintiff
 
 

      2.      VENUE. Venue is appropriate in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), § 1392(a), and 42 U.S.C. § 200e-5(f)(3), as some or all of the acts or events giving rise to the claim occurred within this judicial district and some or all of the defendants reside within this judicial district. Venue is also appropriate under 29 U.S.C. 185(c), as the defendant Teamsters Local No. 70 has its principal office in this judicial district and is engaged in representing members within this judicial district.

       3.     INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT. Under Civil L.R. 3-2(b), assignment is proper in the San Francisco Headquarters or the Oakland division, as the defendant Teamsters Local No. 70 is engaged in the representation of employees of defendant United Parcel Service within Alameda County and maintains its principal offices in Oakland, California, and United Parcel Services maintains offices in Oakland, California and provides services within Alameda County.

        5.        Defendant TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 70, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (herein "Local 70" or the "Union"), is a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of sections 301(a) and 501(1) and (3) of the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended ("LMRA") (29 U.S.C. 142(1), (3), 185(a)).

        6.        Defendant UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. (herein "UPS") is an employer in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of sections 301(a) and 501(1) of the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended ("LMRA") (29 U.S.C. 142(1), 185(a)) and an employer within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C 2000e(b)), and an employer and a person within the meaning of California Government Code sections 12925(d), 12926(d) and 12940(f).

        8.        During the course of plaintiff's employment with UPS, plaintiff actively opposed practices by UPS that discriminated against employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. In particular, plaintiff participated in arranging a meeting at which UPS employees voiced complaints of racial discrimination, passed out flyers for this meeting and spoke to the press concerning this meeting. This meeting directly led to the institution of a legal action by UPS employees alleging race discrimination by UPS. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that this legal action arose, in whole or part, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. In connection with that litigation, plaintiff provided information or testimony to the plaintiffs and/or their attorneys to assist in the prosecution of the foregoing action. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that UPS knew of plaintiff's activities in support of the claims of discrimination that led to the foregoing legal action and his participation in or assistance to that action.

        9.        During the period January 1, 1995 to date, Article 3 of the Northern California Supplemental Agreement provided for seniority based on date of hire by UPS. Article 3, Section 10, further provided, in part, that "All positions shall be offered to full-time regular employees, in seniority order on the appropriate seniority list, when the opening becomes available." Article 3, Section 10, further provided, in part, that "Employees on approved leave shall not be deprived of their seniority selection rights. * * * A driver on leave of absence * * * shall not be deprived of the opportunity to exercise his/her seniority; provided, however, bids must be submitted within the defined bidding period. The company will notify the above defined drivers of any openings in a timely manner, so as to allow interested drivers an opportunity to bid." Article 3, Section 2 provided that seniority could be lost under the following conditions:

"Seniority shall be considered broken by: (a) discharge for just cause; (b) resignation; (c) twenty-four (24) consecutive months of unemployment; thirty-six (36) consecutive months of unemployment for employees with three (3) years of service; or (d) failure to comply with the seventy-two (72) hour recall notice as set forth in Section 4 of this Article."
"Leave of absence granted by the Employer, and temporary layoff, shall not interrupt the continuity of seniority."

        10.        At the time of plaintiff's discharge, Article 7, Section 4 of the Northern California Supplemental Agreement provided, in part:
"Any case pertaining to a discharge or suspension shall be handled as follows: 
"(b) In all cases, except theft, intoxication, use, sale or possession of illegal narcotics and gross insubordination, each having occurred on the job, an employee to be discharged shall be allowed to remain on the job, without loss of pay, unless, and until the discharge is sustained under the grievance procedure." 
"(c) Within five (5) days of the occurrence of the alleged cause for discharge or suspension, the Employer shall give written notice by certified mail to the employee and to the Local Union of its decision to discharge or suspend the employee and such notice shall set for the reason or reasons for the discharge or suspension. If the Employer fails to give such written notice within the specified five (5) day period, the right to discharge or suspend for that particular reason shall be waived." 

         11.        At the time of plaintiff's discharge, and at all times since January 1, 1995, Article 8, Section 1 of the Northern California Supplemental Agreement provided, in part:
"Any employee who is unable to work because of sickness or injury shall be deemed to be on a leave of absence. Such leave will not exceed two (2) years unless extended by written consent of the Union and the Employer. In the absence of such consent, a request for leave shall be subject to dispute procedure, but in no event shall such leave exceed three (3) years, except with the written consent of the Union and the Employer."

        12.        Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that in administering Article 8, Section 1 of the Northern California Supplemental Agreement, neither the Union nor UPS require written consents for leaves of absence because of sickness or injury in excess of two years. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that UPS has allowed employees, other than plaintiff, to remain on leaves of absence for in excess of three years without written consent of the Union and UPS. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that UPS has provided employees who were on leave of absence, other than plaintiff, with the opportunity to return to work prior to claiming any right to discharge such employees. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that the Union is aware of UPS's practices as alleged in this paragraph and has concurred in or accepted such practices as applied to employees other than plaintiff.

        13.        At the time of plaintiff's discharge, Article 7 of the Northern California Supplemental Agreement provided for a grievance and arbitration process. This grievance and arbitration process was binding on the employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement. This process provided that grievances would be heard by a United Parcel Services Labor-Management Committee (herein the "UPS Joint Committee") composed of three representatives from Teamster unions who were parties to the collective bargaining agreement and three representatives from UPS. Any majority decision by the UPS Joint Committee was final and binding on the Union, the employee and UPS without recourse to neutral arbitration. If the UPS Joint Committee was deadlocked, the Union or UPS had the right to demand arbitration. 

        14.        From the time of plaintiff's discharge to date, Article 7, Section 1(b) of the Northern California Supplemental Agreement provided, in part:
"To expedite the equitable resolution of grievances, the Company agrees to make available for inspection, within five (5) days, all pertinent information when a request, in writing, is made by the Local Union."

        15.        On or about August 28, 1995, plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident that disabled him from working his regular employment with UPS. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff advised UPS and the Union that he was unable to perform his regular duties at UPS and plaintiff went on a leave of absence. 

        16.        At various times after commencing his leave of absence, plaintiff would advise UPS of the status of his injury and its effect on his ability to return to work. At all material times, UPS consented to and approved plaintiff's leave of absence. During this period, no one from UPS or the Union advised plaintiff that he had any duty or need to obtain written consent to his leave of absence (assuming such consent had not been obtained) or to take any other actions to ensure that his leave of absence was duly approved or otherwise complied with any rules or requirements under the Northern California Supplemental Agreement. 

        17.        Commencing in the latter part of 1997, plaintiff advised UPS and the Union that his physical condition was improving to the point where he anticipated returning to work. At this same period, plaintiff became aware that there would be a job opening for a delivery position delivering letters upon the pending retirement of the employee currently performing that position. Plaintiff was entitled to bid and obtain this position because of his seniority. Plaintiff advised UPS and the Union of his intention to bid for this job once it became open. Neither UPS nor the Union disputed plaintiff's right to bid for, obtain, and return to work in that position.

       18.        On or about August 3, 1998, plaintiff advised UPS that he would be able to return to full duty on August 17, 1998. Plaintiff anticipated that the position to which he would return to work would be the position delivering letters alleged hereinabove, but plaintiff intended to return to work in whatever position was available to him. Plaintiff's return to work from leave of absence was less than three years after the leave of absence commenced.

       19.        On or about August 7, 1998, UPS set a letter addressed to plaintiff at 1295 Primrose Drive, San Leandro, CA 94578. Plaintiff has never resided at that address or at any address that resembles that address. This letter stated that plaintiff was "currently employed as a service provider in our Broadway Center." This letter purported to discharge plaintiff for exceeding the leave of absence time limits. The letter stated that plaintiff's "leave of absence has exceeded the time limits and is not in accordance with Article 8, Section 1 of the Northern California Package Rider." Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that UPS meant by this language that plaintiff had been on a leave of absence for more than three years. This discharge was without just cause.

       20.        On or about August 10, 1998, the Union filed a grievance protesting plaintiff's discharge.

       21.        On or about August 17, 1998, plaintiff reported for work at UPS and was not allowed to return to work at that time or pending resolution of the grievance filed by the Union. 

        22.        At various times thereafter, plaintiff asked to meet with the Union to discuss his grievance. Plaintiff also requested that the Union request information from UPS in aid of his grievance, including information on the past application of Article 8, Section 1 of the collective bargaining agreement to other employees. The Union refused to meet with plaintiff to discuss his grievance and refused to request information from UPS as plaintiff requested.

        23.        Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Union was hostile to plaintiff because of plaintiff's internal union activity and candidacy for the position of union steward and plaintiff's involvement with of the slate of candidates opposed to the slate of candidates supported by the Union's leadership. Specifically, plaintiff was aligned with and supported the candidacy of Ron Carry and Tom Leedham in opposition to the Hoffa slate supported by the leadership of the Union and, in 1995, had run for Secretary-Treasurer of Local 70 in opposition to the incumbent leadership. In 1998, Plaintiff ran for the position of steward at UPS and was opposed by candidates supported by the Union's leadership. In the course of his campaign, candidates supported by the Union's leadership referred to plaintiff in derogatory terms. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Marty Frates, an agent of the Union, stated that the incumbent leadership of the Union had "stomped" its opposition and "put them on the street."

        24.        UPS was hostile to plaintiff's efforts to run for union steward by reason of plaintiff's prior actions as union steward in enforcing the contract, representing UPS employees, and actively encouraging and participating in preliminary meetings and organization which led to the filing of a lawsuit against UPS alleging that UPS had engaged in racial discrimination, and his participation in or assistance to that action. Among other things, in March 1998, UPS excluded plaintiff from the UPS property when he attempted to campaign at that location for election as union steward. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that UPS allowed other candidates for union steward to campaign on UPS property.

        25.        On or about September 3, 1998, plaintiff's grievance was presented to the UPS Joint Committee in Reno, Nevada. The night before this meeting, September 2, 1998, plaintiff became physically ill and went to the Emergency Department at San Leandro Hospital, where he stayed for treatment until about 5:30 A.M. on September 3, 1998. The Hospital advised plaintiff that he could not travel to the UPS Joint Committee meeting in Reno and plaintiff sent, by FAX, the Hospital's note to that effect to the Union official, Marty Frates, at the meeting in Reno. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Frates received the note from the Hospital prior to the meeting of the UPS Joint Committee and that the UPS Joint Committee was advised of plaintiff's illness prior to the hearing on his case.

       26.        The Rules of Procedure of the UPS Joint Committee provide in Article IV, Section 3: "Postponement of cases on the agenda will be permitted only because of physical illness of one or more of the principles involved, or other serious reason, or upon mutual consent of the parties concerned." Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the normal and routine practice of the UPS Joint Committee is to hold or postpone cases when a principle to the case cannot attend a meeting and to consider the case at a subsequent meeting in order to give the principle an additional opportunity to attend. A grievant is considered a principle within the meaning of the Rules of Procedures and the practice of the UPS Joint Committee.

       27.        Notwithstanding the Rules of Procedure and practice of the UPS Joint Committee alleged hereinabove, plaintiff's case was not postponed. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that during the course of the meeting, the representative of UPS asserted that postponement of hearings could be postponed only upon mutual consent, that the Union made no objection to this statement, notwithstanding the provisions of the Rules of Procedure which allow for postponement due to physical illness, and that the Union made no demand for postponement pursuant to the foregoing Rules of Procedure or the practice of the UPS Joint Committee.

        28.        Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that during the course of the hearing UPS represented to the UPS Joint Committee that plaintiff had been on leave of absence for more than three years—a statement that was untrue—and that the Union, rather than correcting this misstatement, asserted that there was no dispute regarding the time plaintiff was off work. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Union failed to advise the UPS Joint Panel of the numerous conversations plaintiff had with UPS during which UPS approved his leave of absence and, prior to his discharge, had been informed of and approved his return to work. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that during the course of the UPS Joint Committee proceeding the Union adopted a position and tone of representation that indicated to the members of the UPS Joint Panel that the Union did not, in fact, support the grievance and did not desire to pursue it to arbitration and that, as a result, the Teamster-appointed members of the UPS Joint Panel understood that Local 70 desired that they vote in favor of UPS and against plaintiff in order to prevent the UPS Panel from being deadlocked and allowing the dispute to move to neutral arbitration.

        29.        Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that, on or about September 3, 1998, the UPS Joint Committee rejected his grievance and, by such action, terminated the grievance and arbitration procedure under the collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the members of the UPS Joint Committee were all supporters of the Hoffa slate and opponents of the Carry/Leedham slate, that they believed plaintiff was a supporter of the Carry/Leedham slate, and were biased against him because of plaintiff's support for the Carry/Leedham slate.

        30.        At all material times herein, Local 70 owed plaintiff a duty of fair representation. The duty of fair representation requires a union to serve is members' interests without hostility or discrimination towards any, to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honest, and to avoid arbitrary conduct. This duty prohibits bad faith or discriminatory treatment of members by their union. The duty to refrain from arbitrary conduct further prohibits actions by the union so far outside a wide range or reasonableness as to be irrational.

        31.        By the acts alleged herein, Local 70 breached the duty of fair representation owed plaintiff. Among other things, Local 70 did not meet with plaintiff to discuss his grievance, did not investigate his grievance or the past practice of UPS regarding leaves of absence, did not request material information from UPS relating to plaintiff's grievance, did not seek a continuance of his case pursuant to the Rules of Procedure or practice of the UPS Joint Committee, did not correct misstatements of the Rules of Procedure by the UPS representative, did not correct misstatement of fact by the UPS representative but, in fact, affirmatively adopted such misstatement of fact, and conducted itself during the UPS Joint Committee proceeding in a manner that indicated or signaled to the Teamster-appointed members of the Committee that Local 70 desired that they vote against plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Local 70 acted towards plaintiff in bad faith and out of hostility towards plaintiff because of plaintiff's position on internal political affairs within the Teamsters Union and his prior political activity in opposition to the leadership of Local 70 . Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Teamster-appointed members of the UPS Joint Committee were biased against plaintiff because of his position on internal union politics and opposition to the incumbent leadership of Local 70.

        32.        Because Local 70 breached its duty of fair representation, plaintiff lost the right to enforce through arbitration his claims against UPS for breach of the collective bargaining agreement between UPS and Local 70. Plaintiff has been compelled to initiate this action to obtain relief under his claims against UPS and has incurred the costs, attorney's fees, and expenses of this action that, but for Local 70's breach of duty, he would not have incurred. In addition, because of Local 70's breach of duty, plaintiff has lost the ability to obtain the benefits of a speedy resolution of his dispute with UPS and has incurred additional loss by reason of Local 70's breach of duty and delay, including the time-value of any monetary relief he obtains from UPS and emotional distress and suffering.

       33.        UPS did not allow plaintiff to return to work, allow plaintiff to exercise his seniority to bid for job openings for which he was qualified, or allow plaintiff to remain working pending resolution of his grievance. UPS further discharged plaintiff without just cause and without giving plaintiff a notice of the alleged cause for discharge within 5 days of the occurrence of the purported cause for discharge. 

        34.        By the foregoing acts and failures, UPS breached the terms of the Northern California Supplemental Agreement alleged herein above. In particular, UPS breached Article 3, Sections 2 and 10, Article 7, Section 4(b) and (c), and Article 8, Section 1.

        35.        Because of the breach of collective bargaining agreement alleged herein, plaintiff has lost employment with UPS, the value of his seniority at UPS, and past and future wages and benefits which he would have been entitled to receive as an employee of UPS, including, specifically, pension benefits and early retirement benefits.
36.        Damages cannot fully restore plaintiff to the value of the benefits of employment with UPS. Therefore, in addition to other relief, plaintiff seeks equitable relief of an order directing his reinstatement to employment at UPS with restoration of seniority and all back and future employment benefits to which he would have been entitled but for his discharge.

        37.        Section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits discrimination by an employer against an employee because the employee has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by Title VII or because the employee has testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII (42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a)).

        38.        UPS discriminated against plaintiff, in whole or in substantial part, by discharging him in retaliation for plaintiff's opposition to racial discrimination at UPS and his involvement in or assistance to legal actions arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, opposing racial discrimination.

        39.        On or about April 8, 1999, Plaintiff filed charges with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging retaliation by UPS in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or 1964, as amended. On or about April 12, 1999, plaintiff received a Notice of Right To Sue from the EEOC of his right to bring a civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

         40.        Because of the discrimination and retaliation against him, plaintiff has lost wages and benefits, and will lose wages and benefits in the future, and has suffered anxiety, emotional distress and suffering. In addition, UPS acted with malice and ill will towards plaintiff for the purpose of depriving plaintiff of his long-term employment, or without regard to the injury to his employment that plaintiff would suffer, and in conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights to oppose unlawful employment practices and racial discrimination, and to participate in actions seeking to remedy unlawful employment practices and racial discrimination. By reason thereof, plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages against UPS.

        41.        Section 12940(f) of the California Government Code makes it unlawful for any employer or any person to discharge or otherwise discriminate against any other person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or because the person has testified in or assisted in any proceeding under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. 

        42.        UPS discharged or otherwise discriminated against plaintiff, in whole or in substantial part, in retaliation for plaintiff's opposition to racial discrimination at UPS and his involvement in or assistance to legal actions arising under the Fair Employment and Housing Act opposing racial discrimination.

       43.        Plaintiff, through the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has filed charges with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") alleging that he was discharged or discriminated against because of his opposition to race discrimination and his participation in legal actions opposing discrimination. By letter dated April 8, 1999, plaintiff received a Notice of his Right To Sue from the DFEH, and he has thereby exhausted all his administrative remedies under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

        44.        Because of the discrimination and retaliation against him, plaintiff has lost wages and benefits, and will lose wages and benefits in the future, and has suffered anxiety, emotional distress and suffering. In addition, UPS acted with malice and ill will towards plaintiff for the purpose of depriving plaintiff of his long-term employment, or without regard to the injury to his employment that plaintiff would suffer, and in conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights to oppose unlawful employment practices and racial discrimination, and to participate in actions seeking to remedy unlawful employment practices and racial discrimination. By reason thereof, plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages against UPS.

       45.        The public policy of the State of California prohibits racial discrimination in employment and protects all persons who oppose racial discrimination from retaliation or discrimination. This policy is reflected in the laws of the State of California, including, but not limited to, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and, in particular, California Government Code sections 12920, 12920.5, 12921 and 12940(f).

        46.        UPS discriminated against plaintiff, in whole or in substantial part, by discharging him in retaliation for plaintiff's opposition to racial discrimination at UPS and his involvement in or assistance to legal actions opposing racial discrimination. Such discharge and discrimination violated the public policy of the State of California.

        47.        Because of the discrimination and retaliation against him, plaintiff has lost wages and benefits, and will lose wages and benefits in the future, and has suffered anxiety, emotional distress and suffering. In addition, UPS acted with malice and ill will towards plaintiff for the purpose of depriving plaintiff of his long-term employment, or without regard to the injury to his employment that plaintiff would suffer, and in conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights to oppose unlawful employment practices and racial discrimination, and to participate in actions seeking to remedy unlawful employment practices and racial discrimination. By reason thereof, plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages against UPS.

         W H E R E F O R E, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
         1.   Against Local 70: A declaration that the Union breached its duty of fair representation and an award against the Union of such damages, including costs, attorney's fees and expenses and emotional distress and suffering, caused by that breach of duty, as alleged more specifically hereinabove.

         2.   Against UPS: (a) Under the Second Claim for Relief, an award of past and future damages, and equitable relief of reinstatement. (b) Under the Third, Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief herein, general and special damages, including damages for past and future lost wages and benefits, anxiety, emotional distress and suffering. (c) Under the Third, Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief, punitive and exemplary damages. (d) Under the Third and Fourth Claims for Relief, attorney's fees and litigation expenses as allowed under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k) and California Government Code section 12965(b).

         3.        His costs of suit.

         4.        Such other and further relief the Court may deem appropriate on the evidence presented.

Dated: June 15, 1999
 

Christopher W. Katzenbach
Attorney for Plaintiff

Related Links

IRB allegations filled by Chuck Engel
Randy and Friends Community Service Page

Teamsters Local 70 - Unofficial Web site
The Steward Union Page - The Steward For Human, Civil and Workers' Rights

Best of luck,

Dr. H.J. Crespo-Ferrer