Free Proposed Pretrial Order - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 1 of 25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-CV-01227-MSK-PAC DAVID CORTNEY BISHOP, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, CO., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________ FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ 1. DATE AND APPEARANCES The final pretrial conference was held on September 7, 2005. Appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, David Cortney Bishop, was Hollie L. Wieland, of Sears & Swanson, P.C., and appearing on behalf of the Defendant, United Parcel Service, Co., was Jim Goh of Holland & Hart, LLP. 2. JURISDICTION Jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as Plaintiff has alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2615. Jurisdiction also arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

1

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 2 of 25

3. CLAIMS AND DEFENSES a. Plaintiff: Plaintiff Corey Bishop was an employed by Defendant United Parcel Service Co. ("UPS") as an Account Executive from the summer of 2000 through May of 2002. In December 2001, UPS promoted Troy Roten to become Plaintiff's manager. Pursuant to a contract between Mr. Bishop and UPS, Mr. Bishop utilized an "Open Door Policy" to raise concerns about Mr. Roten's management and workplace conduct. ("Open Door Contract") In breach of the Open Door Contract, UPS retaliated against Mr. Bishop for utilizing the Open Door Policy. After utilizing the Open Door Policy, Mr. Bishop was issued a negative performance review, denied training and support, issued written reprimands and reprimanded on numerous occasions for alleged performance issues. After UPS failed to address concerns raised by Plaintiff pursuant to the Open Door Policy and after UPS permitted Mr. Roten to retaliate against Mr. Bishop, Mr. Bishop sought a leave of absence for a serious medical condition - depression. Plaintiff requested medical leave pursuant to Defendant's medical leave policy and pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 2601 - 2654. Plaintiff took leave from February 27, 2002 through March 7, 2002. After Plaintiff returned to work from medical leave, he was further retaliated against for using the medical leave in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 2615. Plaintiff was subjected to severe reprimands and an altered work schedule. Upon Plaintiff's return from medical leave, Plaintiff's supervisor, Troy Roten,

2

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 3 of 25

made Plaintiff's working conditions so difficult and intolerable that any reasonable person in Plaintiff's position would have no other choice than to resign. Plaintiff took a second leave for a serious medical condition from April 2, 2002 through May 18, 2002. Upon his return to work, Plaintiff was not reinstated to an equivalent position. Plaintiff contends that it is Defendant's pattern and practice to retaliate against employees who utilize leave pursuant to FMLA and/or Defendant's medical leave policy. In the event Defendant denies that Plaintiff was authorized for and utilized leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act, it is because of Defendant's failure to provide information required by the Family and Medical Leave Act after Plaintiff reported to Defendant's human resources department that he had a qualifying serious medical condition. Defendant's failure to provide required information pursuant to FMLA constitutes interference with the use of leave in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 2615. Further, Defendant's treatment of Plaintiff breached its contract with plaintiff when it, among other things, failed to treat Plaintiff with "dignity" and provide him an "impartial, rewarding and cooperative environment." Defendant's treatment of Plaintiff breach the covenant of good faith and fair dealing owed to Plaintiff. b. Defendant:

Defendant United Parcel Service ("UPS") denies that it interfered with Plaintiff's rights under the FMLA and further denies that it retaliated against Plaintiff for taking

3

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 4 of 25

leaves of absence. Plaintiff withheld information from UPS concerning his health condition and never requested FMLA leave. The limited information Plaintiff did provide UPS failed to indicate that he had a serious health condition, or that he desired FMLA leave. Plaintiff did not advise UPS of the status of his health until months after he had requested a leave of absence. At that time, Plaintiff again failed to request FMLA leave, instead choosing to be covered by UPS' more generous medical leave policy. After plaintiff's application for disability leave was denied, UPS inquired into whether Plaintiff wished to be considered for FMLA leave. Plaintiff decided not to pursue FMLA leave. In addition, although Plaintiff admits having a history of depression (the alleged basis for his leave requests at issue in this case), Plaintiff did not give UPS advance notice of his alleged need for leave as required by the FMLA. Instead, Plaintiff decided not to report to work, and informed his supervisor of his decision after the fact. After returning to work for a single day, Plaintiff took a second leave, again without providing advance notice. When Plaintiff returned to work following his first leave of absence, he was returned to the identical position he held prior to his leave. In response to Plaintiff's complaints of receiving little training or assistance to improve his declining job performance, Plaintiff's supervisor Troy Roten decided to provide Plaintiff more time and guidance by meeting with him in the morning to set goals for the day and discussing his accomplishments at the end of the day. The mentoring plan was a standard direction

4

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 5 of 25

from Mr. Roten's supervisor, Jack Donnell, in cases where sales employees were failing to meet their sales goals. Plaintiff complied with this mentoring plan for one day. During Plaintiff's second leave of absence, a replacement filled his position as a key account executive in Colorado Springs. This replacement was necessary in order to meet customer needs and achieve UPS' sales goals. Upon his return to work following his second leave of absence, Plaintiff was offered a management position in UPS' Commerce City facility based on Plaintiff's own request not to work under Mr. Roten. This position would not require plaintiff to report to Mr. Roten, and entailed a pay increase and greater responsibilities. Plaintiff was given this position as an interim measure while UPS searched for other suitable sales positions for Plaintiff. Plaintiff declined this job offer and terminated his employment with UPS for "personal reasons." With respect to Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, UPS denies that a contract was created with Plaintiff under UPS' "open door policy" or through vague and indefinite statements in its policy books. Each UPS policy is accompanied by an express disclaimer of contract, and Plaintiff was an at-will employee. Plaintiff never invoked UPS' dispute resolution process to address any concerns at issue in this case. In addition, Plaintiff's claims of breach of contract are barred in whole or in part for lack of consideration, lack of meeting of the minds, the statute of frauds, Plaintiff's failure to satisfy conditions precedent, and unreasonable reliance.

5

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 6 of 25

In addition, Plaintiff's claims in this case are barred and/or his damages reduced by after-acquired evidence of Plaintiff's misconduct. Such misconduct, if discovered during Plaintiff's employment at UPS, would have resulted in UPS' immediate termination of Plaintiff. As to Plaintiff's damage claims, any damage suffered by Plaintiff are due to his own fault and misconduct, not that of UPS. Plaintiff failed to mitigate alleged damages suffered during and following his employment. Plaintiff's damages are too speculative to be awarded. Further, any alleged medical or emotional injury or distress suffered by Plaintiff was caused by factors other than Plaintiff's employment, including but not limited to Plaintiff's emotional, psychological and physical history. UPS also asserts that Plaintiff's claims for damages are barred, in whole or in part, by UPS' good faith effort to comply with the laws. Finally, UPS contends that it is entitled to attorneys' fees, expenses and costs under FED. R. CIV. P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927. With respect to UPS' counterclaims against plaintiff, Plaintiff executed an Employee Proprietary Information and Innovation Agreement ("the Agreement") with UPS on or about February 26, 2001. By the Agreement, Plaintiff agreed not to use, publish or otherwise disclose, either during or after termination of his employment with UPS, any secret or confidential information or data of UPS. , Plaintiff admitted that, during his leave of absence from his employment with UPS, he interviewed for employment with FedEx, a major competitor of UPS". UPS received an e-mail detailing some of the information revealed by plaintiff to FedEx employees during that interview. Plaintiff

6

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 7 of 25

breached the Agreement by interviewing with FedEx during his leave of absence from UPS and disclosing UPS' customer lists, account agreements, price structures, market development plans, sales strategies, secrets and other confidential information and data. In addition, Plaintiff's disclosures or attempted disclosures of UPS' confidential or proprietary information constitute a breach of his duty of loyalty to his employer, UPS. As a result of Plaintiff's breach of the Agreement and breach of his duty of loyalty, UPS has suffered actual and consequential damages that it seeks to recover in this lawsuit. UPS also seeks to recover interest, attorneys' fees and costs it has incurred in this matter. c. Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Counterclaim

Plaintiff denies that it breached any duty of loyalty to UPS. He denies that he disclosed any confidential or proprietary information to anyone. UPS has suffered no damages as a result of any actions by Plaintiff or failed to mitigate its damages. UPS' claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, laches, unclean hands, consent and/or acquiescence. UPS' claims are barred by its own failure to satisfy conditions precedent to its right under any alleged contract. UPS' claims are barred by a failure of consideration and lack of meeting of the minds. Finally, UPS' claims are frivolous and vexatious and/or groundless, entitling Bishop to an award of attorney's fees, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927.

7

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 8 of 25

4. STIPULATIONS 1. 2. 3. UPS was Plaintiff's employer as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4). On January 1, 2002, Troy Roten officially became Plaintiff's supervisor. From February 27, 2002 through March 7, 2002, Plaintiff was absent from

work on a leave. 5. PENDING MOTIONS 1. Defendant's Revised Motion for Summary Judgment filed on May 2, 2005. 6. WITNESSES a. List the nonexpert witnesses to be called by Plaintiff. Plaintiff's

witnesses who will be present at trial (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A)); a. and damages. b. Carole Strickland may testify regarding UPS' workplace environment; Cory David Cortney ("Cory") Bishop will testify about all aspects of his claims

Bishop's performance; UPS' treatment of Cory Bishop; UPS' attitude toward employees requesting medical leave; representations made by UPS to its employees and the contracts between UPS and its employees. c. Penny Harper may testify regarding UPS' workplace environment; Cory

Bishop's performance; UPS' treatment of Cory Bishop; UPS' attitude toward employees requesting medical leave; representations made by UPS to its employees and the contracts between UPS and its employees.

8

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 9 of 25

d.

David Joe Napikoski may testify regarding UPS' workplace environment;

Cory Bishop's performance; UPS' treatment of Cory Bishop; UPS' attitude toward employees requesting medical leave; representations made by UPS to its employees and the contracts between UPS and its employees. Plaintiff's witnesses who may be present at trial if the need arises (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(a)); a. Cindy Bishop may testify regarding Plaintiff's claims for non-economic

injuries, including but not limited to pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation. b. Troy Roten may testify regarding the UPS workplace environment,

Plaintiff's claim for medical leave, Plaintiffs job performance, representations made by UPS to its employees, the performance of other employees similarly situated to Plaintiff, his discussions with Jack Donnell, Plaintiff and/or other UPS representatives. c. Thomas Bartlett, M.D., and/or Christopher D. Zill, M.D. 320 E. Fontanero

#100 Colorado Springs, Colorado, 80907. Dr. Bartlett and/or Dr. Zill may testify regarding Plaintiff's medical condition; his communications with UPS, its representatives and agents regarding Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's need to be placed on leave pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act. d. Judith Benton, CNS, RXN, 2411 N. Tejon Street, Colorado Springs,

Colorado, 80907. Ms. Benton may testify regarding Plaintiff's medical condition, her

9

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 10 of 25

communications with UPS, its representatives and agents regarding Plaintiff and Plaintiff's need to be placed on leave pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act. e. Kathrin Turner, c/o UPS. Ms. Turner may be asked to testify regarding

UPS' policies and procedures, UPS' human resource practices, interactions with Kemper Insurance relating to Plaintiff, relationship between UPS and Kemper Insurance and UPS' processing of leave requests. f. Thomas Droppelman. Mr. Droppelman may be asked to testify regarding

UPS' policies and procedures, UPS' human resource practices, interactions with Kemper Insurance relating to Plaintiff, relationship between UPS and Kemper Insurance and UPS' processing of leave requests. Plaintiff's witnesses where testimony is expected to be presented by means of a deposition and, if not taken stenographically, a transcript of the pertinent portions of the deposition testimony. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(B). a. (1) 26(a)(3)(A)); Defendant's Non-Expert Witnesses - Will Call a. Jack Donnell, UPS, c/o Holland & Hart, LLP, 90 S. Cascade, Suite 1000, Plaintiff does not anticipate the testimony by means of deposition. Defendant's witnesses who will be present at trial (see Fed. R. Civ. P.

Colorado Springs, CO 80903, (719) 475-6463. Mr. Donnell will testify concerning Plaintiff's claims in this case, Plaintiff's work performance, his meetings and

10

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 11 of 25

communications with plaintiff, UPS' damages as a result of plaintiff's misconduct, and other facts and circumstances of plaintiff's claims and UPS' counterclaims. b. Troy Roten, UPS, c/o Holland & Hart, LLP, 90 S. Cascade, Suite 1000,

Colorado Springs, CO 80903, (719) 475-6463. Mr. Roten will testify concerning Plaintiff's claims in this cases, Plaintiff's work performance, UPS' damages as a result of plaintiff's misconduct, and other facts and circumstances of plaintiff's claims and UPS' counterclaims. Defendant's Non-Expert Witnesses - May Call a. Carole Strickland c/o Hollie Wieland, 2 North Cascade, Ste. 1250,

Colorado Springs, CO. Ms. Strickland may testify concerning Plaintiff's claims in this case, including the work environment at UPS' Colorado Springs facility. b. Jesse Gallegos, UPS, c/o Holland & Hart, LLP, 90 S. Cascade, Suite 1000,

Colorado Springs, CO 80903, (719) 475-6463. Mr. Gallegos may testify concerning Plaintiff's claims in this case, Plaintiff's work performance, and other facts and circumstances of this case. c. Ed Campos, UPS, c/o Holland & Hart, LLP, 90 S. Cascade, Suite 1000,

Colorado Springs, CO 80903, (719) 475-6463. Mr. Campos may testify concerning Plaintiff's claims in this case, Plaintiff's work performance, and other facts and circumstances of this case.

11

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 12 of 25

d.

Stefan Wilson, UPS, c/o Holland & Hart, LLP, 90 S. Cascade, Suite 1000,

Colorado Springs, CO 80903, (719) 475-6463. Mr. Wilson may testify concerning Plaintiff's claims in this case, Plaintiff's work performance, and other facts and circumstances of this case. e. Carrie Asher, UPS, c/o Holland & Hart, LLP, 90 S. Cascade, Suite 1000,

Colorado Springs, CO 80903, (719) 475-6463. Ms. Asher may testify concerning Plaintiff's claims in this case, Plaintiff's work performance, and other facts and circumstances of this case. f. Shelly McDonald, UPS, c/o Holland & Hart, LLP, 90 S. Cascade, Suite

1000, Colorado Springs, CO 80903, (719) 475-6463. Ms. McDonald may testify concerning Plaintiff's claims in this case, Plaintiff's work performance, and other facts and circumstances of this case. g. John Cooper and/or Glenn Mickelson, UPS, c/o Holland & Hart, LLP, 90 S.

Cascade, Suite 1000, Colorado Springs, CO 80903, (719) 475-6463. Mr. Cooper and/or Mickelson may testify concerning Plaintiff's claims in this case, Plaintiff's work performance, UPS personnel policies, UPS' damages as a result of Plaintiff's misconduct and other facts and circumstances of this case. h. Doug Nelson, UPS, c/o Holland & Hart, LLP, 90 S. Cascade, Suite 1000,

Colorado Springs, CO 80903, (719) 475-6463. Mr. Nelson may testify concerning his

12

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 13 of 25

receipt and distribution of an e-mail discussing the interview of a UPS account executive and other facts and circumstances of this case. i. Elizabeth Finch, FedEx, 3620 Hacks Cross Rd., Bldg. B, 3rd Floor,

Memphis, Tennessee 38125. Elizabeth may testify concerning Plaintiff's interview with FedEx and information disclosed by Plaintiff during that interview. j. Kevin Morris, FedEx, 3620 Hacks Cross Rd., Bldg. B, 3rd Floor, Memphis,

Tennessee 38125. Mr. Morris may testify concerning Plaintiff's interview with FedEx and information disclosed by Plaintiff during that interview k. Mark McNulty. Mr. McNulty may testify concerning Troy Roten's UPS job

performance, Plaintiff's UPS job performance, Mr. McNulty's conversations with Plaintiff, Mr. Roten's interactions with Mr. McNulty, Mr. Roten's interactions with Plaintiff, and other facts and circumstances of this case. l. Jonathan Boyd. Mr. Boyd may testify concerning Troy Roten's UPS job

performance, Plaintiff's UPS job performance, Mr. Boyd's conversations with Plaintiff, Mr. Roten's interactions with Mr. Boyd, Mr. Roten's interactions with Plaintiff, and other facts and circumstances of this case. m. Penny Harper. Ms. Harper may testify concerning Troy Roten's UPS job

performance, Plaintiff's UPS job performance, Ms. Harper's conversations with Plaintiff, Mr. Roten's interactions with Ms. Harper, Mr. Roten's interactions with Plaintiff, and other facts and circumstances of this case.

13

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 14 of 25

n.

Paul Deaton. Mr. Deaton may testify concerning Troy Roten's UPS job

performance, Plaintiff's UPS job performance, Mr. Deaton's conversations with Plaintiff, Mr. Roten's interactions with Mr. Deaton, Mr. Roten's interactions with Plaintiff, and other facts and circumstances of this case. o. Don Stephas. Mr. Stephas may testify concerning Troy Roten's UPS job

performance, Plaintiff's UPS job performance, Mr. Stephas' conversations with Plaintiff, Mr. Roten's interactions with Mr. Stephas, Mr. Roten's interactions with Plaintiff, and other facts and circumstances of this case. Defendant's expert witnesses who will be present at trial. None. Defendant's expert witnesses who may be present at trial. a. Patricia A. Anctil, BA, CRC, CDMS, CCM, Vocational Rehabilitation

Consultant, P.O. Box 9068, Colorado Springs, CO 80932, (719) 471-8840. Mrs. Anctil may testify on the issue of plaintiff's mitigation efforts, employment opportunities available, and other opinions set forth in her report concerning Plaintiff. Defendant's witnesses where testimony is expected to be presented by means of a deposition_.: None. 7. a. EXHIBITS

List the exhibits to be offered by each party and identify those to be stipulated into evidence.

14

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 15 of 25

Plaintiff's Exhibits: See attached Joint Exhibit List. Defendant's Exhibits See attached Joint Exhibit List. Other parties: None. b. Copies of listed exhibits are to be provided to opposing counsel on September 5,

2005. The objections contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) shall be filed with the clerk and served by hand delivery or facsimile on or before September 9, 2005. 8. DISCOVERY

On September 1, 2005, Plaintiff received responses to interrogatories from Defendant relating to Defendant's counterclaim. Production of responsive documents is scheduled for September 5, 2005. To date, Plaintiff has not received documents responsive to his requests for production. Plaintiff is conferring with opposing counsel regarding discovery disputes. If the parties are unable to resolve such disputes, Plaintiff anticipates filing a motion to compel. 9. SPECIAL ISSUES Plaintiff reserves the right to endorse additional exhibits or amend or supplement this Final Pretrial Order once Defendant has provided documents responsive to discovery requests.

15

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 16 of 25

10. SETTLEMENT a. Counsel for the parties and any pro se party met in person on May 2, 2005, to

discuss the settlement of the case. The parties were unable to reach settlement. b. The participants in the settlement conference, included counsel, and party

representatives. c. d. The parties were promptly informed of all offers of settlement. Counsel for the parties and any pro se party may hold future settlement conferences. e. It appears from the discussion by all counsel and any pro se party that there is

some possibility of settlement. f. The date of the next settlement conference before the magistrate judge or other

alternative dispute resolution method: 9/19/05 at 1:30 pm g. Counsel for the parties and any pro se party considered ADR in accordance with

D.C.COLO.LCivR.16.6. 11. OFFER OF JUDGMENT Counsel and any pro se party acknowledge familiarity with the provision of rule 68 (Offer of Judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel have discussed it with the clients against whom claims are made in this case.

16

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 17 of 25

12. EFFECT OF FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER Hereafter, this Final Pretrial Order will control the subsequent course of this action and the trial, and may not be amended except by consent of the parties and approval by the court or by order of the court to prevent manifest injustice. The pleadings will be deemed merged herein. This Final Pretrial Order supersedes the Scheduling Order. In the event of ambiguity in any provision of this Final Pretrial Order, reference may be made to the record of the pretrial conference to the extent reported by stenographic notes and to the pleadings. 13. TRIAL AND ESTIMATED TRIAL TIME; FURTHER TRIAL PREPARATION PROCEEDINGS Plaintiff has requested a jury trial. It is anticipated this case can be tried in five days in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

DATED this

day of September 2005. BY THE COURT:

_________________________________ United States Magistrate Judge

17

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 18 of 25

APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Hollie L. Wieland Hollie L. Wieland SEARS & SWANSON, P.C. 2 North Cascade Suite 1250 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (719) 471-1984 (719) 577-4356 facsimile Attorney for Plaintiff hollie@sears&swanson.com /s/ Christie L. Ryan Christie L. Ryan HOLLAND & HART, LLP 90 South Cascade Suite 1000 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (719) 475-7730 (719) 634-2461 facsimile Attorney for Defendant [email protected]

18

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 19 of 25

JUDGE MARCIA S. KRIEGER Joint Exhibit List Civil Action No. 04-CV-1227-MK-PAC Caption: David Cortney Bishop v. United Parcel Service, Co. Page Date: September 2, 2005

Exhibit

Witness

Brief Description

Stipulation

Offered

Admitted

Refused

Ruling Reserved

Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Bishop's Job History with UPS (UPS 001-004) Bishop's Leave of Absence Form, signed by Jack Donnell on 04/12/2002 (UPS 0019) Bishop's 5/30/2000 Acknowledgment of Obligation to Uphold Policies (UPS 0031) Bishop's 11/14/2000 Acknowledgment of Obligation to Uphold Policies (UPS 0094) Bishop's UPS Professional Conduct, signed 5/20/2000 (UPS 0032) Bishop's 2000 Quality Performance Review (UPS 00430049) Bishop's 2001 Quality Performance Review (UPS 00340039) Bishop's 05/01/2001 Pay Raise Form (UPS 0040) Bishop's 05/01/2001 Promotion Processing Form (UPS 0041) Bishop's 11/15/2000 Promotion Processing Form (UPS 0051) Bishop's 06/12/2000 Promotion Processing Form (UPS 0053) Bishop's Honesty In Employment Form signed on 11/17/97 (UPS 0099)

X X X X X X X X X X X X

19

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 20 of 25

JUDGE MARCIA S. KRIEGER Joint Exhibit List Civil Action No. 04-CV-1227-MK-PAC Caption: David Cortney Bishop v. United Parcel Service, Co.
Exhibit Witness Brief Description Stipulation Offered Admitted

Page Date: September 2, 2005
Refused Ruling Reserved Comments

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Bishop's Honesty In Employment Form signed on 06/01/90 (UPS 0100) Bishop's Honesty In Employment Form signed on 05/22/00 (UPS 0102) UPS Policy Book (UPS 0110--UPS 0174) UPS Code of Business Conduct Leading with Integrity (UPS 00175 ­ 00206) EDR Program (B-0881 ­ B-00890) Compliance Standards and Procedures Manual (UPS 0207 - 0250) Family and Medical Leave Compliance Manual (UPS 0251 - 0287) 01/02/2001 Business Plan Performance memo from Roten to Bishop (UPS 0290) UPS Annual Report 2002 (B-00468-B-00573) Our Partnership Legacy by George D. Smith (B-00079 ­ B-00156) Our Partnership Legacy by J.B. Casey, (B-00157 ­ B00295) Our Partnership Legacy by Oberkotter, Obberkotter, Lamb and Rogers, (B-00296 ­ B-00467) UPS Binder Quest for Leadership, (B-00574 ­ B-00847) Employee List (UPS 0355 - 0356)

X X X X X

X X

20

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 21 of 25

JUDGE MARCIA S. KRIEGER Joint Exhibit List Civil Action No. 04-CV-1227-MK-PAC Caption: David Cortney Bishop v. United Parcel Service, Co.
Exhibit Witness Brief Description Stipulation Offered Admitted

Page Date: September 2, 2005
Refused Ruling Reserved Comments

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Roten's Honesty in Employment Form, signed 12/08/1994 (UPS 00343) Roten's Professional Conduct Form, signed 12/08/1998 (UPS 0344) Roten's Employee Proprietary Information and Innovation Agreement signed on 03/31/2000 (UPS 0351 - 0352) Roten's Employee Proprietary Information and Innovation Agreement signed on 04/06/2001 (UPS 0353 - 0354) Paul Deaton's Personnel File (UPS 360- 004) Jonathan Boyd's Personnel File (UPS 0451-510) Donald Stephas' Personnel File (UPS 514- 709) Penny Harper Personnel File (UPS 710 - 779; 962) David Napikoski Personnel File (UPS 780 - 820) Mark McNulty Personnel File (UPS 821 - 961) Troy Roten's Personnel File (UPS 1003 - 1116) Carole Strickland's Personnel File Jack Donnell' Personnel File Kemper Insurance File (B-0001 - 00064) Judith Benton Clinician Statements (B 0008-00012) 2001 Total Territory Report for Total All Products for Account Executives in Region/District 559

21

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 22 of 25

JUDGE MARCIA S. KRIEGER Joint Exhibit List Civil Action No. 04-CV-1227-MK-PAC Caption: David Cortney Bishop v. United Parcel Service, Co.
Exhibit Witness Brief Description Stipulation Offered Admitted

Page Date: September 2, 2005
Refused Ruling Reserved Comments

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

2001 Territory V&R Detail Reports for Account Executives in Region/District 0559 2002 Total Territory Report for Total All Products for Account Executives in Region/District 559 2002 Territory V&R Detail Reports for Account Executives in Region/District 0559 2003 Total Territory Report for Total All Products for Account Executives in Region/District 559 2003 Territory V&R Detail Reports for Account Executives in Region/District 0559 Excerpts from 29 U.S.C. § 2615 Excerpts from 29 CFR § 825.214 Excerpts from 29 CFR § 825.215 Excerpts from 29 CFR § 825.220 Timeline 2001 Summary of Account Executive's Sales Performance 2002 Summary of Account Executive's Sales Performance Organization Chart Summary of Performance Evaluations

22

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 23 of 25

JUDGE MARCIA S. KRIEGER Joint Exhibit List Civil Action No. 04-CV-1227-MK-PAC Caption: David Cortney Bishop v. United Parcel Service, Co.
Exhibit Witness Brief Description Stipulation Offered Admitted

Page Date: September 2, 2005
Refused Ruling Reserved Comments

57

Email dated May 5, 2002 from Doug Nelson to Jack Donnell (UPS 00357 -- 00359). Plaintiff's Separation Form (UPS 00017) Bishop's Employee Proprietary Information and Innovation Agreement signed on 2/26/01 (UPS 107-108) Typed notes regarding Mr. Bishop's career planning (UPS 00289) Memorandum from Troy Roten to Mr. Bishop regarding business plan performance review (UPS 00290) Contracts Ending Report dated October 22, 2004 (UPS 00291) UPS' Equal Employment Opportunity, Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policies (B-00011) Plaintiff's Career Development Planning Guide (UPS00012-16) Notes of Troy Roten concerning Plaintiff's career planning, (UPS-00288) Handwritten notes of meeting with Troy Roten, Plaintiff and Jack Donnell (UPS 00020-00022). Grade Assessment for US Sales Force regarding Plaintiff, 2001 (UPS 00042) Grade Assessment for US Sales Force regarding Plaintiff, 2000 (UPS 00052)

58 59

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

23

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 24 of 25

JUDGE MARCIA S. KRIEGER Joint Exhibit List Civil Action No. 04-CV-1227-MK-PAC Caption: David Cortney Bishop v. United Parcel Service, Co.
Exhibit Witness Brief Description Stipulation Offered Admitted

Page Date: September 2, 2005
Refused Ruling Reserved Comments

69 70 71 72

UPS Employment Application completed by Plaintiff, 11/5/97 (UPS 00054-00058) UPS Employment Application completed by Plaintiff, 5/16/00 (UPS 00059-00062) UPS Employment Application completed by Plaintiff, 5/30/00 (UPS 00024-00027) Acknowledgment of Obligation re: impartial employment and promotion policies signed by Plaintiff, 11/14/00 (UPS 00094) Supervisor Candidate Initial Assessment (UPS 00109) Letter dated May 15, 2002 from Kemper to Plaintiff (Kemper B-00005-00006) Kemper Initial Patient Contact Form concerning Plaintiff (Kemper B-00050-00064) Documents pertaining to employee benefits valuation Peer Review Report concerning Plaintiff (Kemper B00012-00013) UPS FMLA Policy, 2003

73 74 75 76 77

78

79

UPS Account Executive Essential Job Functions (UPS 934-936) UPS Employee Evaluation and Review Policy (UPS 00132)

80

24

Case 1:04-cv-01227-MSK-PAC

Document 85

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 25 of 25

JUDGE MARCIA S. KRIEGER Joint Exhibit List Civil Action No. 04-CV-1227-MK-PAC Caption: David Cortney Bishop v. United Parcel Service, Co.
Exhibit Witness Brief Description Stipulation Offered Admitted

Page Date: September 2, 2005
Refused Ruling Reserved Comments

81

Stipulations

X

25