Steve Dinwiddie v. United Parcel Service

Eighth Circuit

Steve Dinwiddie v. United Parcel Service

177 F.3d 688, 161 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2430, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 9817

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 21, 1999

Docket98-2992

StatusPublished

This text of 177 F.3d 688 (Steve Dinwiddie v. United Parcel Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steve Dinwiddie v. United Parcel Service, 177 F.3d 688, 161 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2430, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 9817 (8th Cir. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Steve Dinwiddie brought suit against his employer, United Parcel Service, alleging various state-law causes of action. UPS moved for summary judgment based on the fact that Dinwiddie’s claims were preempted under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. See Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, 486 U.S. 399, 405, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988). This motion was denied, and the suit proceeded to trial. The jury found in favor of Dinwiddie on his tort-of-outrage claim and awarded him $536,850.00 in damages. UPS then moved for a judgment as a matter of law, and the District Court 2 granted the motion and dismissed the lawsuit.

The District Court based its ruling on two separate grounds. First, the Court held that the outrage claim was “inextricably intertwined” with provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement governing employee discharge and grievance procedures. Memorandum Opinion and Order June 4, 1998, No. LR-C-97-527 at 5. Second, the Court found that the evidence simply would not support a verdict on the claim of outrage under Arkansas law. Id. at 7.

Although we suspect the District Court was correct in both respects, we affirm on the basis that Dinwiddie did not produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could have concluded that UPS’s “conduct was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.” Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 243, 743 S.W.2d 380, 382 (1988). The issue is one of state law, and the case does not have enough precedential significance to justify the filing of a fuller opinion.

Affirmed.

2

. The Hon. George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Steve Dinwiddie brought suit against his employer, United Parcel Service, alleging various state-law causes of action. UPS moved for summary judgment based on the fact that Dinwiddie’s claims were preempted under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. See Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, 486 U.S. 399, 405, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988). This motion was denied, and the suit proceeded to trial. The jury found in favor of Dinwiddie on his tort-of-outrage claim and awarded him $536,850.00 in damages. UPS then moved for a judgment as a matter of law, and the District Court 2 granted the motion and dismissed the lawsuit.

The District Court based its ruling on two separate grounds. First, the Court held that the outrage claim was “inextricably intertwined” with provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement governing employee discharge and grievance procedures. Memorandum Opinion and Order June 4, 1998, No. LR-C-97-527 at 5. Second, the Court found that the evidence simply would not support a verdict on the claim of outrage under Arkansas law. Id. at 7.

Although we suspect the District Court was correct in both respects, we affirm on the basis that Dinwiddie did not produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could have concluded that UPS’s “conduct was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.” Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 243, 743 S.W.2d 380, 382 (1988). The issue is one of state law, and the case does not have enough precedential significance to justify the filing of a fuller opinion.

Affirmed.

2

. The Hon. George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 F.3d 688, 161 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2430, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 9817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steve-dinwiddie-v-united-parcel-service-ca8-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack