Judge: Love is loser in nonfraternization policy

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Although the United Parcel Service Inc. came out as winners in a discrimination case in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, love and marriage were deemed the losers by the appellate judges.

In Gerald C. Ellis v. United Parcel Service Inc., No. 07-2811, Ellis filed a discrimination claim against UPS after he was fired for fraternizing with a fellow employee. Ellis, a manager who is African-American, claimed he was fired after his supervisors discovered he was dating and eventually married a white woman who worked in UPS' phone center.

UPS has a strict nonfraternization policy, which forbids managers from having a romantic relationship with any hourly employee.

Despite this policy, Judge Terence Evans noted many employees dated each other and love must have been in the air at UPS because Ellis and Glenda Greathouse started dating and married after four years. They kept their relationship a secret from the company, but eventually Ellis' direct supervisor Angela Wade, who is African-American, learned about their relationship. Wade reported the relationship, and Ellis met with human resources manager Kenny Walker, also African-American. Walker explained the nonfraternization policy to Ellis and said the two would have to break up or one would have to quit.

Ellis didn't end the relationship and the two married a little more than a year later. Later, the company discovered Ellis did not break up with Greathouse, and Walker fired Ellis for violating the policy and for dishonesty after he refused to resign.

In his appeal, Ellis didn't present evidence to show he was fired for having an interracial relationship with another employee, wrote Judge Evans. The evidence he produced of multiple intraracial relationships being treated more favorably were not subject to the same decision makers as Ellis when they allegedly violated company policy by fraternizing. His failure to establish that any other similarly situated manager in an intraracial relationship was treated more favorably doomed his discrimination claim, the judge wrote.

Judge Evans emphasized the court's decision to affirm summary judgment in favor of UPS shouldn't be construed as an endorsement of the nonfraternization policy at UPS. The judge went on to note that these days, more and more people are meeting significant others at work because that is where they spend most of their time. Also, Ellis was a good employee and had a long work history with UPS, and that he met his future wife while at work makes for a fairly nice story, he wrote.

"Although UPS, for the reasons we have stated, comes out on top in this case, love and marriage are the losers. Something just doesn't seem quite right about that," Judge Evans wrote.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.