Back to Sample Page » U.S. Court of Appeals or the 8th Circuit, Crone v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS)
Requriments:In a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals or the 8th Circuit, Crone
v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) (Note: a UPS dispatcher was
denied a supervisory position because her boss feared drivers would make
her cry. Read the case and discuss the outcome of the case, whether the
holdings of this case could lead to unlawful excuses for discrimination in
other settings and/or against other classes, and the ethics of incorporating the principles of this case into DWI's EEO policy book and training.
You have just been hired by Diversified Worldwide Industries (DWI), Inc., as the Vice President of Risk Management. DWI is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida, and has over 150 offices in 30 countries. DWI is incorporated in the State of Delaware; its ships are flagged by Liberia and the Bahamas.
The Corporation's principal activities are grouped into the following areas:
• ENVIRONMENT: Water and water treatment, waste management;
• OIL & ENERGY: Exploration, production, transport, refining, wholesale marketing, alternative fuels research;
• COMMUNICATIONS: Telecommunications, Internet, audiovisual activities, publishing and multimedia;
• LEISURE & RECREATION: Hotels, casinos, cruise ships;
• REAL ESTATE: Builds homes and manages properties in active adult, age-restricted communities;
• FINANCIAL: Brokerage for capital market investments in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, and emerging markets;
• MANUFACTURING: Produces, distributes, markets, exports and imports spirits and wines.
Your duties as the VP for Risk Management will require that you develop knowledge and expertise in all areas of business law, consult with corporate and outside counsel on legal matters, and advise the board as to available options to reduce or minimize the risk and liability of DWI in its ongoing activities.
Case by the U.S. Court
Case by the U.S. Court
After reading this case, I believe the outcome of this case was reasonable because there are a few reported instances where the bilateral discussions did result in practices being ceased, namely: the promise of a loyalty by a UPS dispatcher to their customers if they undertook not to import; a refusal by a shipping company in one country to sell some special parcel delivery services, together with know-how, to an undertaking in another country because of an agreement between the shipping company and other companies; a system under which three companies gave a jointly owned manufacturing subsidiary a proportion of the purchase price when they bought certain supplies -- of the type which the subsidiary made -- from other suppliers; and a collective bonus given by an association of shipping companies to retailers on a scale related to their purchases of domestically produced goods.
These discriminations will, in effect, be supplanted by the requirement in the EEO Agreement that the DWI industries adopt EEO-type discrimination and create an enforcement body, the DWI Surveillance Authority, to apply them. The discriminations which have long existed will be given teeth -- not least because they are intended to be directly effective and can in addition lead to substantial penalties.
The Training manual concluded largely identical agreements of association with each of the DWI industries. The Association Agreements (officially named the Free Trade Agreements) contain competition provisions clearly modeled on Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome, although there is a limitation in that the provision in the Free Trade Agreements only refers to 'competition as regards the production of or trade in goods' and does not extend to services.
Restrictive agreements and abuse of a dominant position in the whole or a substantial part of the Risk management are declared to be incompatible with the proper functioning of the Free Trade Agreements. However, there are no provisions for automatic nullity or other sanctions for breach of competition provisions of the Free Trade Agreements comparable to those found in the Treaty of Rome. The Agreements provide for an intergovernmental mechanism to resolve problems -- a mechanism that has been used only once. The EEOJ has never had to consider whether these discriminations have direct effect. As with the DWI Agreement discrimination these will be superseded by the EEA Agreement.
Until recently the majority of DWI industries have not had wide-ranging, effective competition discrimination. Some DW industries have moved towards Articles 85- and 86-type regimes. Historically, these industries have tolerated cartels and have fostered restricted import arrangements. Protected domestic markets have been used as a springboard for industrial growth. The protection has not always been government-imposed but has arisen from what, in other industries, would be regarded as unacceptable anti-competitive conduct.
Chapter 34, Price Discrimination and Competition, Handbook of Industrial Organization, Volume 3, 2007, Pages 2221-2299