Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-alnd-3_24-cv-00739-0
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
PORSHA L. PRIDE-FORT,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
INC.,
Defendant.
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Case No.: 3:24-cv-00739-MHH
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Porsha L. Pride-Fort has sued her current employer, United Parcel Service,
Inc., for racial and sexual discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Doc. 1-1). UPS has asked the Court to enter
summary judgment in its favor on Ms. Pride-Fort’s claims pursuant to Rule 56 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 18). This opinion addresses UPS’s motion.
The Court begins with an overview of the legal standard that governs motions for
summary judgment. Then, consistent with that standard, the Court summarizes the
evidence in the summary judgment record and analyzes Ms. Pride-Fort’s Title VII
claims based on the summary judgment evidence.
FILED
2026 Apr-10 PM 02:16
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 1 of 22
2
I.
A district 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). To demonstrate a genuine dispute as to a
material fact that precludes summary judgment, a party opposing a motion for
summary judgment must cite “to particular parts of materials in the record, including
depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations,
stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(A). “The court
need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the
record.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(3). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in
support of the [non-moving party’s] position will be insufficient; there must be
evidence on which a jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party].” Terrell
v. Sec’y, Dep’t of V eterans Affs., 98 F.4th 1343, 1351 (11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied
sub nom. Terrell v. McDonough, 145 S. Ct. 273 (2024) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)) (alteration in Terrell).
When considering a motion for summary judgment, a district court must view
the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and
draw reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. White v. Beltram Edge
Tool Supply, Inc., 789 F.3d 1188, 1191 (11th Cir. 2015). “A litigant’s self-serving
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 2 of 22
3
statements based on personal knowledge or observation can defeat summary
judgment.” United States v. Stein, 881 F.3d 853, 857 (11th Cir. 2018); see also
Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach, 707 F.3d 1244, 1253 (11th Cir. 2013) (“To be sure,
Feliciano’s sworn statements are self-serving, but that alone does not permit us to
disregard them at the summary judgment stage.”). Even if a district court doubts the
veracity of the evidence, the court cannot make credibility determinations; that is the
work of a factfinder. Feliciano, 707 F.3d at 1252 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255).
Still, “[c]ontentions based on ‘mere speculation and conjecture’ cannot defeat
summary judgment.” Terrell, 98 F.4th at 1351 (quoting Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Metro.
Props., Inc., 806 F.2d 1541, 1544 (11th Cir. 1986)). Applying this standard, the
Court presents the summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to Ms.
Pride-Fort.
II.
Ms. Pride-Fort is an African American woman. (Doc. 1-1, p. 8). In 2018,
UPS hired Ms. Pride-Fort as a part-time dispatch supervisor at a distribution center
in Florence, Alabama. (Doc. 28-2, pp. 8–9, tpp. 32:20–33:4, 34:1–6). After UPS
hired Ms. Pride-Fort, another UPS employee asked to work the dispatch supervisor
position. (Doc. 28-2, p. 9, tp. 33:7–19). UPS accommodated the employee’s request
and moved Ms. Pride-Fort to a part-time package center supervisor position. (Doc.
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 3 of 22
4
28-2, p. 9, tp. 33:7–19).1 As a package center supervisor, Ms. Pride-Fort handles
customer concerns, finds missing packages, monitors drivers while they deliver
packages, tracks vehicle fuel and oil use, and coordinates packages transferred to
other shippers for delivery. (Doc. 28-2, p. 9, tpp. 35:19–36:10).
Two other people work as part-time package center supervisors at UPS’s
Florence center, an African American woman named Shawauntae Williams and a
white woman named Caleigh Stanfield. (Doc. 19-1, p. 3, ¶ 7). Ms. Williams works
the morning shift. (Doc. 28-2, p. 13, tp. 51:14–23). Ms. Pride-Fort works the mid-
day shift, from 12:00 pm to 5:00 pm. (Doc. 28-2, pp. 9, 10, tpp. 36:11–15, 37:14–
22).2 Ms. Stanfield works the evening shift. (Doc. 28-2, p. 13, tp. 52:4–11). Ms.
Williams, Ms. Pride-Fort, and Ms. Stanfield share an office. (Doc. 28-2, p. 13, tp.
49:8–13). They report to full-time supervisor Theron “Chris” Little. (Doc. 19-1, p.
3, ¶ 7).
UPS employs several other part-time supervisors at the Florence center,
including a white woman named Lindsey Garrison and a white man named Joshua
Brandon. (Doc, 19-1, p. 3, ¶ 8). Ms. Garrison is a dispatch supervisor. (Doc. 19-
1, p. 3, ¶ 8). As a dispatch supervisor, Ms. Garrison analyzes and plans the center’s
1 Ms. Pride-Fort refers to her part-time package center supervisor position as “OMS.” (See Doc.
20, p. 3; Doc. 28-2, p. 9, tp. 33:1–23).
2 Ms. Pride-Fort works these hours Tuesday through Friday. (Doc. 28-2, p. 10, tp. 37:14–22). On
Mondays, Ms. Pride-Fort works from 3pm until 8pm. (Doc. 28-2, p. 10, tp. 37:14–22).
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 4 of 22
5
package dispatch, analyzes previous dispatch results, supervises load modifications,
and supervises the maintenance of technology systems. (Doc. 19-3, p. 4, ¶ 8b). Mr.
Brandon is a preload supervisor. (Doc. 19-1, p. 3, ¶ 8). As a preload supervisor, Mr.
Brandon trains and supervises package handlers and clerks on safety and
productivity, assists with package concerns like damaged packages and incorrect
addresses, and performs other preload-related tasks. (Doc. 19-3, p. 4, ¶ 8c). Ms.
Garrison and Mr. Brandon report to full-time supervisor Zach Howell. (Doc. 19-1,
p. 3, ¶ 8).
Mr. Little and Mr. Howell report to the Florence Center Business Manager.
(Doc. 19-3, pp. 2–3, ¶ 3). Before 2021, Bryan Payant was the center manager. (Doc.
19-3, pp. 2–3, ¶ 3). Charles “Chuck” Sims was the Florence center manager from
April 2021 until July 2024. (Doc. 19-1, p. 2, ¶¶ 1, 2; Doc. 19-3, pp. 2–3, ¶ 3).
Ms. Pride-Fort raises a plethora of grievances against UPS to support her
discrimination and retaliation claims. Many of Ms. Pride-Fort’s grievances mirror
claims that her mother raised in a separate discrimination suit against UPS.3
3 In 2023, Ponsetta Simmons, Ms. Pride-Fort’s mother, sued UPS for discrimination and retaliation
under Title VII. See (Doc. 28-2, p. 9, tpp. 34:22–35:4); Comp. ¶¶ 2–6, Simmons v. United Parcel
Service, Inc., 3:23-cv-01128-CLS (N.D. Ala.), Dkt. No. 1-1. Judge Smith granted UPS’s motion
for summary judgment on Ms. Simmons’s claims. See Memo Op. at 27, 3:23-cv-01128-CLS
(March 19, 2025), Dkt. No. 28; Simmons v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 3:23-CV-1128-CLS,
2025 WL 868207, at *10 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 19, 2025). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Simmons v.
United Parcel Serv. Inc, No. 25-11261, 2026 WL 457812, at *1 (11th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026). The
Court takes judicial notice of the court records in Ms. Simmons’s case. See Bobadilla v. Aurora
Loan Services, LLC, 478 Fed. Appx. 625, 627 (11th Cir. 2012) (pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 5 of 22
6
Ms. Pride-Fort alleges that UPS discriminatorily restricted her hours. (See
Doc. 22-3, p. 4, no. 5). In 2022, UPS’s “upper management” reduced part-time
supervisors’ hours pursuant to a nation-wide “cost-saving” effort. (Doc. 19-1, p. 3,
¶ 9; Doc. 28-2, p. 14, tp. 56:1–10). According to Ms. Pride-Fort, Mr. Sims gave Ms.
Garrison extra hours after the hours reduction but would not give her and Ms.
Williams extra hours. (Doc. 28-2, p. 24, tpp. 95:1–96:16). Ms. Pride-Fort asserts
that Ms. Stanfield worked more hours than her. (See Doc. 22-3, p. 2, no. 1). Ms.
Williams, Ms. Pride-Fort, and Ms. Stanfield worked the following hours in 2023 and
2024:
2023 Hours
Ms. Pride-Fort Ms. Williams Ms. Stanfield
January 78.25 125.18 108.83
February 98.5 123.03 92.29
March 118.45 109.95 130.71
April 101.74 119.14 109.74
May 113.32 100.02 126.17
June 80.1 150.02 94.62
July 91.61 109.72 99.88
August 127.09 103.58 134.6
September 100.8 121.69 72.28
October 89.58 131.99 116.05
November 131.6 91.1 95.37
December 104.28 133.88 99.39
Total 1235.32 1419.3 1279.93
Rules of Evidence, “[a] court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of inferior
courts.”) (quoting United States v. Rey, 811 F.2d 1453, 1457 n.5 (11th Cir.1987)).
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 6 of 22
7
2024 Hours
Ms. Pride-Fort Ms. Williams Ms. Stanfield
January 87.4 99.67 81.21
February 85.76 101.79 96.2
March 105 85 95.48
April 106 95 79.43
May 104.99 105 101.18
June 74.83 88.28 75.64
July 84.25 75 102.13
August 103.41 110 104.4
September 69.75 105 75.31
October 122.17 77.5 110.25
November 107.24 82.04 101.29
December 89.7 147.46 93.11
Total 1140.5 1171.74 1115.63
(Doc. 19-3, pp. 64–66, 68–70).
According to Ms. Pride-Fort, Ms. Stanfield often arrived late for her
scheduled shifts and left her shifts early. (See Doc. 28-2, pp. 13, 25, tpp. 52:4–18,
100:4–7). Ms. Pride-Fort heard “everyone talk[] about . . . how [Ms. Stanfield]
leaves early” and on “a few” occasions observed that Ms. Stanfield was not at the
Florence center during a scheduled shift. (Doc. 28-2, pp. 13, 14, tpp. 52:12–15,
53:8–18).
Additionally, Mr. Sims purportedly gave Ms. Garrison and Ms. Stanfield extra
days off when they “covered” shifts but would not give Ms. Pride-Fort extra days
off. (Doc. 28-2, pp. 24, 25, tpp. 93:8–14, 98:23–100:3). Ms. Pride-Fort testified that
she knew about Ms. Garrison and Ms. Stanfield’s extra days off because Ms.
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 7 of 22
8
Garrison and Ms. Stanfield told Ms. Pride-Fort that Mr. Sims gave them extra days.
(Doc. 28-2, pp. 24, 25, tpp. 93:19–94:18, 99:10–14). Ms. Pride-Fort could not recall
when Ms. Garrison and Ms. Stanfield told her this. (Doc. 28, pp. 24, 25, tpp. 94:15–
18, 99:12–100:3). UPS’s employment records show that Ms. Pride-Fort took 23
personal days in 2023, and Ms. Stanfield took 11 personal days in 2023. (Doc. 19-
3, pp. 64, 66). In 2024, Ms. Pride-Fort took 15 personal days; Ms. Stanfield took
13. (Doc. 19-3, pp. 68, 70).
Ms. Pride-Fort alleges that UPS wrongfully denied her opportunities for
promotion. Shortly after UPS hired Ms. Pride-Fort in 2018, Ms. Pride-Fort told
then-center manager Bryan Payant that she was interested in a full-time dispatch
supervisor position. (Doc. 28-2, p. 33, tpp. 130:3–12). In the spring of 2021, Ms.
Pride-Fort told Mr. Sims she was interested in a full-time position at UPS. (Doc. 28-
2, p. 33, tp. 130:13–21). Ms. Pride-Fort testified that she has applied for “two or
three” full-time positions with UPS, but she could not recall what positions she
applied for or when she applied. (Doc. 28-2, p. 35, tpp. 139:20–140:16).
Ms. Pride-Fort was interested in a full-time driving position with UPS. (See
Doc. 28-2, pp. 33–34, tpp. 132:20–133:3). Mr. Sims asked other part-time managers
to become drivers. (Doc. 28-2, p. 34, tp. 133:2–19). For instance, Mr. Sims “tr[ied]
to get [Ms. Garrison] in the [full-time] dispatch position,” but . . . she had to go to
driving school and drive on the road for 30 days.” (Doc. 28-2, p. 34, tpp. 133:20–
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 8 of 22
9
134:9). Mr. Sims never asked Ms. Pride-Fort to become a driver, and Ms. Pride-Fort
never applied for a full-time driving position. (Doc. 28-2, pp. 33–34, tpp. 132:20–
133:3). UPS does not employ black women in permanent delivery driver positions
at the Florence center. (Doc. 28-2, p. 26, tp. 101:6–12).
Ms. Pride-Fort identifies numerous offensive comments that she heard while
working for UPS. “Years ago,” Ms. Pride-Fort overheard Mr. Brandon say that black
women are lazy. (Doc. 28-2, p. 26, tpp. 101:6–102:17). Ms. Pride-Fort did not report
Mr. Brandon’s comment to the UPS help line, her supervisors, or HR. (Doc. 28-2,
p. 26, tpp. 102:20–103:14). In 2023, Mr. Little told Ms. Pride-Fort that she would
need to “sit on [Mr.] Sims’s lap” if she wanted to reschedule her vacation. (Doc. 28-
2, p. 40, tpp. 159:23–160:8). Ms. Pride-Fort did not report Mr. Little’s comment.
(Doc. 28-2, p. 40, tp. 160:11–12).
While Mr. Sims was the Florence center manager, he made several offensive
comments. Mr. Sims told people that he was raised by a black woman whom he
called “Mammy.” (Doc. 28-2, p. 36, tp. 141:10–15). Mr. Sims commented about
“nappy hair.” (Doc. 28-2, p. 36, tp. 141:1–6). Mr. Sims told employees that they
needed to wear their hair up and once told Ms. Pride-Fort and Ms. Williams that “if
a rat got in [their] hair” it would die. (Doc. 28-2, p. 36, tp. 142:6–14). Mr. Sims
said that “black food” was disgusting. (Doc. 23, p. 4; Doc. 28-2, p. 36, tp. 141:7–
9). Mr. Sims told Ms. Pride-Fort that when he worked in Mississippi as a delivery
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 9 of 22
10
driver, most of his deliveries were to black beauty salons, that the salons smelled,
and that their food smelled like dead animals. (Doc. 28-2, p. 37, tpp. 145:22–
146:17). Mr. Sims would slur the word “chicken” when speaking to Black
employees and once referred to a Black manager as “dog,” saying “maybe my dog
will want some of that chicken.” (Doc. 28-2, p. 37, tpp. 146:18–147:6). Mr. Sims
gave Ms. Pride-Fort a bail bond card that he found in “the middle of the road” and
told her she must have dropped it outside. (Doc. 28-2, p. 26, tpp. 103:17–104:2).
Mr. Sims told a black employee that he was talking too much and would “get [an]
MLK day.” (Doc. 28-2, p. 31, tpp. 121:13–122:9). Other UPS employees witnessed
some of these comments. (See Doc. 28-2, p. 38, tp. 149:8–12).4
Ms. Pride-Fort did not confront Mr. Sims when he made racially tinged
comments and did not report his comments to her supervisors or other UPS officials.
(Doc. 28-2, pp. 26, 32, 38, tpp. 104:3–7, 125:2–126:1, tp. 149:1–7). In 2022, Brook
Hall, a UPS security person, told Ms. Pride-Fort that she was investigating Mr.
Sims’s conduct. (Doc. 28-2, p. 38, tpp. 150:3–7, 151:20–152:5). Ms. Pride-Fort told
Ms. Hall that Mr. Sims harassed Black employees “on a day-to-day basis.” (Doc.
28-2, p. 38, tpp. 151:20–152:5).
4 Ms. Pride-Fort testified that she believes another employee once complained about Mr. Sims’s
comments, but she does not know whether the employee reported Mr. Sims’s comments to the
UPS helpline or other authorities. (Doc. 28-2, p. 38, tpp. 149:13–150:2).
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 10 of 22
11
Once, a UPS customer subjected Ms. Pride-Fort to racially tinged insults and
threats. During a telephone call on December 23, 2022, a customer called Ms. Pride-
Fort a “Black bitch,” threatened to hang her, and threatened to confront Ms. Pride-
Fort at the Florence center. (Doc. 28-2, p. 42, tpp. 165:16–166:15; see Doc. 19-3, p.
26). When Ms. Pride-Fort reported the call to Mr. Sims, he asked Ms. Pride-Fort
whether the customer was Black or white. (Doc. 28-2, p. 42, tp. 166:19–23). Ms.
Pride-Fort responded that the customer sounded white, and Mr. Sims left the facility.
(Doc. 28-2, p. 42, tpp. 166:19–167:2). Later, the customer went to the Florence
Center, and Ms. Pride-Fort called the police. (Doc. 28-2, p. 42, tp. 167:13–21). Mr.
Little and Mr. Howell spoke with the police and barred the customer from returning
to the Florence center. (Doc. 28-2, p. 42, tp. 168:8–19; see Doc. 19-3, p. 23).
Ms. Pride-Fort’s remaining complaints relate to Mr. Sims’s conduct while he
was the Florence center manager. For example, Ms. Garrison had items hanging on
her office walls, but Mr. Sims told Ms. Pride-Fort that she could not hang anything
on her office walls. (Doc. 28-2, pp. 29–30, tpp. 113:20–114:3).5 Mr. Sims once
shoved a pack of paper at Ms. Pride-Fort. (Doc. 28-2, p. 26, tp. 104:13–15). In late
2022, Mr. Sims removed UPS hotline posters with information on reporting
5 Ms. Pride-Fort testified that she does not know whether Mr. Sims told Ms. Garrison that she
could not hang anything on the walls. (Doc. 28-2, pp. 30–31, tp. 120:16–121:2).
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 11 of 22
12
discrimination and harassment. (See Doc. 28-2, pp. 15–16, tpp. 59:20–64:19).6 Mr.
Sims reposted the help line information in late 2023. (Doc. 28-2, p. 16, tp. 63:3–
15). In July 2024, Mr. Sims brought watermelon slices for employees at the Florence
center. (Doc. 19-1, p. 4, ¶ 14; Doc. 28-2, p. 21, tp. 84:10–21).7
In the spring of 2023, Ms. Pride-Fort contacted the EEOC to report
discrimination. (Doc. 28-2, p. 51, tp. 204:4–19). Ms. Pride-Fort identified Mr. Sims
and Mr. Orson as contact persons for the EEOC. (Doc. 28-2, p. 52, tp. 205:3–10).
Ms. Pride-Fort believes that the EEOC notified Mr. Sims of her complaints. (Doc.
28-2, p. 52., tp. 205:3–12). Ms. Pride-Fort testified that after she contacted the
EEOC, Mr. Sims’s conduct deteriorated. (Doc. 28-2, p. 52, tp. 206:14–21). Mr.
Sims would yell at the part-time package center supervisors and “blam[e] [them] for
stuff [they] didn’t do.” (Doc. 28-2, p. 52, tpp. 206:22–207:21). Mr. Sims never
mentioned Ms. Pride-Fort’s call with the EEOC. (Doc. 28-2, p. 52, tp. 206:5–7).
6 Ms. Williams told Ms. Pride-Fort that Mr. Sims removed the posters. (Doc. 28-2, p.16, tp. 63:16–
20). Ms. Pride-Fort did not indicate whether Ms. Williams witnessed Mr. Sims remove the posters
or learned of their removal from other witnesses. (See Doc. 28-2, p.16, tp. 63:16–20).
7 Mr. Sims offered Ms. Pride-Fort and another black employee watermelon, and Ms. Pride-Fort
“was told” that he only offered black employees watermelon throughout the day. (Doc. 28-2, p.
22, tp. 87:5–21). Based on this information, Ms. Pride-Fort testified that Mr. Sims only asked
black employees if they wanted watermelon. (Doc. 28-2, p. 21, tp. 84:10–21). Mr. Sims attests
that he gave watermelon slices to all employees. (Doc. 19-1, p. 4, ¶ 14). Because Ms. Pride-Fort
lacks personal knowledge of whether Mr. Sims handed watermelon slices to non-black employees,
the Court does not credit her testimony. See United States v. Stein, 881 F.3d 853, 857 (11th Cir.
2018) (“A litigant’s self-serving statements based on personal knowledge or observation can defeat
summary judgment.”).
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 12 of 22
13
On October 19, 2023, Ms. Pride-Fort filed an EEOC charge alleging that UPS
discriminated against her because of her race and sex. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 7–8). Ms.
Pride-Fort has not identified alleged retaliatory activity that occurred after she filed
her EEOC charge.
Ms. Pride-Fort testified that Mr. Sims’s conduct caused her to experience
blood pressure issues, anxiety, and depression. (Doc. 28-2, p. 49, tp. 194:2–17).
III.
Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees in
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of race, sex,
and other protected characteristics. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). To succeed on a Title
VII discrimination claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a protected characteristic
“was a motivating factor” for her employer’s discriminatory treatment. See Yelling
v. St. Vincent’ s Health Sys., 82 F.4th 1329, 1338 (11th Cir. 2023) (quoting Quigg v.
Thomas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 814 F.3d 1227, 1239 (11th Cir. 2016)).
A plaintiff may use the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework to
establish a claim for discrimination. Jenkins v. Nell, 26 F.4th 1243, 1249 (11th Cir.
2022) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)). “Aside
from the McDonnell Douglas framework, an employee can . . . survive summary
judgment by presenting . . . a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that
would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decisionmaker.”
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 13 of 22
14
Jenkins, 26 F.4th at 1250. Regardless of which framework the employee uses, a
district court “must answer the same ‘ultimate question’—’whether there is enough
evidence to show that the reason for an adverse employment action was illegal
discrimination.’” Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 146 F.4th 972, 997 (11th Cir. 2025)
(quoting Tynes v. Fla. Dep’t of Juv. Just., 88 F.4th 939, 941 (11th Cir. 2023), cert.
denied, 145 S. Ct. 154 (2024)).
Ms. Pride-Fort has not established a prima facie case of discrimination under
McDonnell Douglas. Ms. Pride-Fort belongs to a protected class, was qualified to
perform her job, and suffered an adverse employment action when UPS reduced her
hours. (See Doc. 20, p. 9); Jones v. Aaron’ s Inc., 748 Fed. Appx. 907, 917 (11th Cir.
2018) (finding that reducing an hourly employee’s hours was an adverse
employment action because it caused the employee to earn less pay). But Ms. Pride-
Fort has not demonstrated that UPS treated a similarly situated employee of a
different race or gender more favorably.
Ms. Pride-Fort points to Ms. Garrison, but Ms. Garrison is not a similarly
situated employee because she performed different job duties, and she did not report
to Mr. Little. Lukie v. Metlife Grp., Inc., No. 22-10967, 2024 WL 4471109, at *4
(11th Cir. Oct. 11, 2024) (“[A] similarly-situated comparator will ordinarily: have
engaged in the same basic conduct as the plaintiff; been subject to the same
employment policy; had the same supervisor; and shared the plaintiff’s employment
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 14 of 22
15
or disciplinary history.”) (citing Lewis v. City of Union City, 918 F.3d 1213, 1227–
28 (11th Cir. 2019) (en banc)). Accordingly, UPS’s treatment of Ms. Garrison is not
probative of whether UPS discriminated against Ms. Pride-Fort. See Nix v. WLCY
Radio/Rahall Commc’ns, 738 F.2d 1181, 1186 (11th Cir. 1984) (“[I]f an employer
applies a rule differently to people it believes are differently situated, no
discriminatory intent has been shown.”) (quotation omitted).
Ms. Pride-Fort also points to Ms. Stanfield, but UPS did not treat Ms.
Stanfield more favorably than Ms. Pride-Fort. UPS’s employment records
demonstrate that Ms. Pride-Fort worked approximately 40 hours fewer than Ms.
Stanfield in 2023 and worked approximately 25 more hours than Ms. Stanfield in
2024. (Compare Doc. 19-3, pp. 64, 68 with Doc. 19-3, pp. 66, 70). Ms. Pride-Fort
worked more hours than Ms. Stanfield four months in 2023 and six months in 2024.
(Compare Doc. 19-3, pp. 64, 68 with Doc. 19-3, pp. 66, 70). Ms. Pride-Fort and Ms.
Stanfield each worked fewer hours in 2024 than they did in 2023. (Compare Doc.
19-3, pp. 64, 68 with Doc. 19-3, pp. 66, 70). Ms. Williams, another African
American female part-time package center supervisor, worked more hours than Ms.
Pride-Fort and Ms. Stanfield in 2023 and 2024. (See Doc. 19-3, pp. 65, 69). Given
the variation in the package center supervisors’ hours each month, the modest
difference in Ms. Pride-Fort and Ms. Stanfield’s total hours, and the number of hours
Ms. Williams worked, no reasonable jury could find that the discrepancy between
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 15 of 22
16
Ms. Pride-Fort’s and Ms. Stanfield’s hours suggests that UPS treated Ms. Stanfield
more favorably than Ms. Pride-Fort because of race.
Ms. Pride-Fort has not presented other evidence that would “allow a jury to
infer intentional discrimination.” Jenkins, 26 F.4th at 1250. Ms. Pride-Fort points
to Mr. Sims’s racially tinged comments and other incidents at the Florence center
that she claims “raise[s] a reasonable inference of [UPS’s] discriminatory intent.”
(See Doc. 23, pp. 12–15). But Ms. Pride-Fort has not explained why this evidence
suggests that the relevant decision makers, UPS’s upper-management, reduced Ms.
Pride-Fort’s hours because of her race or gender.
Moreover, the record demonstrates that UPS reduced Ms. Pride-Fort and other
part-time employees’ hours as part of a “cost-savings project[].” (See Doc. 19-1, p.
3, ¶ 9). Ms. Pride-Fort has not demonstrated that UPS’s stated reason for reducing
her hours was pretextual. See Simmons v. United Parcel Serv. Inc, No. 25-11261,
2026 WL 457812, at *3 (11th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026). And Ms. Pride-Fort “has not
presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the ‘real reason for
the employment action was discrimination.’” Simmons, 2026 WL 457812, at *3
(quoting Tynes, 88 F.4th at 944). Accordingly, the Court will grant UPS summary
judgment on Ms. Pride-Fort’s discrimination claim.
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 16 of 22
17
***
To establish a Title VII hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must
demonstrate:
[T]hat she belongs to a protected group; she has been subject to
unwelcome harassment; the harassment was based on a protected
characteristic of the employee[;] . . . the harassment “was sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and
create a discriminatorily abusive working environment”; and there is a
basis for holding the employer liable.
Mukhina v. Walmart, Inc., 162 F.4th 1128, 1133 (11th Cir. 2025) (quoting Miller v.
Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2002)).8
“Title VII gives rise to liability for hostile work environment only in the case
of a workplace that is ‘permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and
insult.’” Callahan v. City of Jacksonville, 805 Fed. Appx. 749, 751 (11th Cir. 2020)
(quoting Miller, 277 F.3d at 1276). “[C]onduct must be extreme to amount to a
change in the terms and conditions of employment.” Weatherly v. ABC Legal, Inc.,
No. 23-11143, 2024 WL 2698023, at *9 (11th Cir. May 24, 2024) (citing Faragher
v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998) (emphasis in Weatherly). “[S]imple
teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will
8 Ms. Pride-Fort describes the UPS Florence Center as a “hostile work environment,” but she does
not list a hostile work environment claim among her causes of action in her complaint. (Doc. 1-1,
pp. 1, 3–5, ¶¶ 2, 9, 11, 14–29). The Eleventh Circuit has instructed district courts to consider a
plaintiff’s claim that is not specifically pleaded if an allegation in the plaintiff’s complaint puts the
defendant on notice of the cause of action. White v. Beltram Edge Tool Supply, Inc., 789 F.3d 1188,
1200 (11th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the Court will consider the merits of Ms. Pride-Fort’s hostile
environment claim in light of the summary judgment evidence.
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 17 of 22
18
not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment.”
Callahan, 805 Fed. Appx. at 751 (quoting Faragher, 524 U.S. at 788).
To establish that harassment is severe or pervasive, a plaintiff must
demonstrate that she “‘subjectively perceive[d]’ the hostile work environment ‘to be
abusive’” and “‘that a reasonable person would find [the environment] hostile or
abusive.’” Copeland v. Georgia Dep’t of Corr., 97 F.4th 766, 775 (11th Cir. 2024)
(quoting Miller, 277 F.3d at 1276) (alterations added). District Courts “consider
four factors to determine whether harassment of an employee meets this objective
requirement: (1) its frequency, (2) its severity, (3) whether it is ‘physically
threatening or humiliating,’ and (4) whether it ‘unreasonably interferes with . . . job
performance.’” Copeland, 97 F.4th at 775 (quoting Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195
F.3d 1238, 1246 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc)).
Ms. Pride-Fort has not established that UPS subjected her to harassment based
on race that was objectively severe or pervasive enough to affect her terms and
conditions of employment.9
9 Ms. Pride-Fort identifies one comment that appears related to her sex–Mr. Little’s statement that
Ms. Pride-Fort would “need to sit on Mr. Sim’s lap if she wanted her vacation time moved.” Mr.
Little’s statement amounts at best to an “offhand comment” and does not affect the terms and
conditions of Ms. Pride-Fort’s employment. See Dar Dar v. Associated Outdoor Club, Inc., 248
Fed. Appx. 82, 85–86 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that evidence of “two sexually inappropriate
comments and two incidents of intentional buttocks touching” were not sufficient to establish a
hostile work environment claim based on sex); Mendoza, 195 F. 3d at 1247–50 (holding that a
female employee could not establish a hostile work environment claim where a male supervisor
followed her around the workplace on several occasions, twice visibly stared at her groin area and
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 18 of 22
19
Ms. Pride-Fort experienced a severe incident of harassment when a UPS
customer threatened her, but Ms. Pride-Fort has not established a basis for holding
UPS liable for the customer’s conduct. Mukhina, 162 F.4th at 1133. An employer
is liable for a person other than a supervisor’s harassing conduct “only if [the
employer] knew or should have known of the harassing conduct but failed to take
prompt remedial action.” See Baldwin v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Ala., 480 F.3d
1287, 1302 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). After Ms. Pride-Fort informed UPS
that the customer who threatened her was at the Florence center, two supervisors–
Mr. Little and Mr. Howell–took remedial action by returning to the center,
cooperating with police, and barring the customer from returning. Accordingly, UPS
is not liable for the customer’s conduct.
Ms. Pride-Fort’s remaining complaints do not demonstrate that she
experienced severe or pervasive harassment. Mr. Sims’s racially charged comments
were “crude” and “boorish,” but under binding precedent, they constitute offensive
remarks rather than threatening or humiliating statements. Yelling v. St. Vincent’s
Health Sys., 82 F.4th 1329, 1336 (11th Cir. 2023). Additionally, Ms. Pride-Fort has
not demonstrated that UPS employees frequently made such offensive comments to
her. See Simmons, 2026 WL 457812, at *4; compare Ponsetta Simmons’s
made a sniffing motion, and once rubbed his hip against her hip while touching her shoulder and
smiling).
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 19 of 22
20
Deposition, 3:23-cv-01128-CLS (N.D. Ala.), (Doc. 24-1, pp. 19–20, tpp. 68:11–
69:4, 69:11–22, 72:8–13) (indicating that Mr. Sims said, “you all eat the same food
[as] my Mammy . . . more than once,” commented on African American hair “all the
time,” and joked “about taking his dogs out for chicken . . . more than once”) with
Ms. Pride-Fort’s Deposition, 3:24-cv-00739-MHH, (Doc. 28-2, p. 36, tp. 141:1–15),
(indicating that Mr. Sims commented about “nappy” hair “on a day-to-day basis,”
commented on black culture, and “pretty often” referred to “his mammy”).
Moreover, Ms. Pride-Fort has not explained how Mr. Sims’s conduct
interfered with her job performance. Ms. Pride-Fort testifies that Mr. Sims’s
harassment caused her to experience high blood pressure, anxiety, and depression.
(Doc. 28-2, p. 53, tp. 194:2–17). Ms. Pride-Fort has not presented medical evidence
that documents her physical impairments.10 Nor has Ms. Pride-Fort described how
her symptoms affected her work. Thus, Ms. Pride-Fort has not established a genuine
issue of material fact regarding the extent to which Mr. Sims’s conduct unreasonably
interfered with her job performance. C.f. Gupta v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 212 F.3d 571,
586 (11th Cir. 2000) (finding that alleged harassment would not have interfered with
a reasonable employee’s job performance where the employee testified that she
suffered from physical manifestations of stress including depression, anxiety,
10 Defense counsel indicates that Ms. Pride-Fort also failed to produce medical records
documenting her impairments during discovery. (Doc. 24, p. 5).
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 20 of 22
21
fatigue, weight gain and that the manifestations affected her work and caused her to
miss deadlines).
In short, the summary judgment evidence demonstrates that Mr. Sims engaged
in “serious” and “inappropriate” conduct. Simmons, 2026 WL 457812, at *4. Still,
Ms. Pride-Fort “has not offered enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find that
the environment [Mr.] Sims created at the UPS Florence center was so ‘severe or
pervasive’ that it ‘alter[ed] the terms of [Ms. Pride-Fort’s] employment.’” Simmons,
2026 WL 457812, at *4 (citing Smelter v. S. Home Care Servs., 904 F.3d 1276, 1285
(11th Cir. 2018)). Accordingly, the Court will enter judgment for UPS on Ms. Pride-
Fort’s hostile environment claim.
***
Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee “because
[s]he has opposed any practice” made unlawful by Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
3(a). “As a starting point for any retaliation claim, a plaintiff needs to show . . . that
the decisionmaker actually knew about the employee’s protected expression.”
Martin v. Fin. Asset Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 959 F.3d 1048, 1053 (11th Cir. 2020). Ms.
Pride-Fort asserts that UPS retaliated against her after she complained to the EEOC
in the spring of 2023. (Doc. 23, pp. 15–16). Ms. Pride-Fort has not provided
evidence that UPS was aware that she had contacted the EEOC. (See Doc. 28-2, p.
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 21 of 22
22
52, tpp. 205:3–206:16). Accordingly, the Court will enter judgment for UPS on Ms.
Pride-Fort’s retaliation claim.
IV .
For the reasons discussed above, the Court grants UPS’s motion for summary
judgment on Ms. Pride-Fort’s Title VII discrimination, hostile work environment,
and retaliation claims. By separate order, the Court will enter a final judgment in
favor of UPS. The Clerk of Court shall please TERM Doc. 18.
DONE and ORDERED this April 10, 2026.
_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-00739-MHH Document 31 Filed 04/10/26 Page 22 of 22