The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's summary judgment ruling in favor of United Parcel Service, Inc. in an employment discrimination case filed by three female workers.
Galena Goins, Sonia Lopez, and Terry Jones-Jackson brought claims against UPS alleging unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of sex. The workers filed their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under case number 4:21-cv-08722-PJH, with District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton presiding.
The plaintiffs brought their discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. They also filed claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, the state's primary civil rights statute that provides similar protections against workplace discrimination.
Jones-Jackson individually brought additional claims under the Equal Pay Act, which requires equal pay for equal work regardless of sex, and the California Equal Pay Act, the state's parallel statute addressing wage disparities.
The case proceeded through the federal court system with oral arguments held on Dec. 4, 2025, in San Francisco. The three-judge panel that heard the appeal consisted of Circuit Judges Rawlinson, Miller, and Sanchez. Judge Rawlinson filed a separate concurrence with the majority decision.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's grant of summary judgment using the de novo standard, meaning the appeals court examined the legal issues fresh without deference to the lower court's analysis. The court cited Adcock v. Chrysler Corp. as precedent for the appropriate standard of review in employment discrimination cases involving summary judgment.
Summary judgment is a legal procedure that allows courts to resolve cases without a full trial when there are no genuine disputes about material facts and the law clearly favors one side. For employers to prevail on summary judgment in discrimination cases, they typically must show either that the alleged discriminatory conduct did not occur or that legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons existed for any adverse employment actions.
The appeals court's decision was issued as an unpublished memorandum on Jan. 12, 2026, and marked "not for publication." Under Ninth Circuit rules, unpublished decisions are not considered binding precedent except in limited circumstances outlined in Circuit Rule 36-3.
The original lawsuit was filed in 2021, indicating the case proceeded through several years of litigation before reaching the summary judgment stage. Employment discrimination cases often involve extensive discovery proceedings where both sides gather evidence about workplace policies, individual employment decisions, and comparative treatment of employees.
Title VII claims require plaintiffs to establish either direct evidence of discrimination or meet the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, where workers must show they suffered an adverse employment action under circumstances suggesting discrimination. Employers can then articulate legitimate reasons for their actions, shifting the burden back to employees to demonstrate those reasons were pretextual.
The Equal Pay Act claims brought by Jones-Jackson would have required showing she performed substantially equal work to male colleagues but received unequal compensation. The EPA allows for certain defenses, including seniority systems, merit-based pay structures, or systems that measure earnings based on quantity or quality of production.
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act often provides broader protections than federal law and allows for different remedies, including punitive damages in some circumstances. The California Equal Pay Act, strengthened in recent years, prohibits pay disparities based on sex and requires employers to demonstrate that wage differences result from legitimate factors other than sex.
The Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction encompasses federal courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, making it the largest federal appeals court by geographic area and caseload. Employment discrimination appeals represent a significant portion of the circuit's civil rights docket.
While the appeals court's decision favored UPS, the unpublished nature of the ruling means specific details about the court's reasoning remain limited in the available record. The concurrence by Judge Rawlinson suggests potential nuances in the legal analysis, though the content of that separate opinion was not detailed in the court filing.
The case represents another chapter in ongoing workplace discrimination litigation involving major employers. UPS, as one of the nation's largest package delivery companies, regularly faces employment-related lawsuits given its substantial workforce across multiple states and job categories.
The affirmance means the three plaintiffs' discrimination claims have been resolved in favor of UPS at both the district court and appeals court levels. The workers would need to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari review to pursue further appeals, though the high court accepts only a small percentage of such requests for review.