Staten Island Park Hill, Fox Hill Apartments Sue UPS For Discrimination In Doorstep Package Delivery

See below for the press conference held at the apartments by candidate for Congress Mike DeCillis, along with Gordon Flowers and the other residents who are part of the class action lawsuit:

To put this into context, FedEx AND United States Postal Service (USPS) both deliver packages directly to the residents of these two buildings, right to their own doors, without apparent incident.  We are reaching out to both of these companies to see if they have had any issues with such deliveries, but since their practice continues of door to door delivery, it’s unlikely there have been incidents.  

The two issues that UPS had mentioned previously are that they are afraid to leave their trucks outside of the building unattended, as they could be robbed, and back in the 1990s, a UPS delivery worker was robbed at gunpoint in one of these two buildings, neither of which are City-run NYCHA houses, but they are both Section 8-occupied apartments.  

At these two building complexes, known as Park Hill and Fox Hill, UPS won’t deliver to their doors. They have to walk several blocks and stand in line to get their UPS packages.  There’s a lawsuit against UPS for this issue. 

FedEx and USPS both deliver to these resident’s doors without problems. The above was a press conference with Rep. Malliotakis’ opponent for the election this November.  The plaintiffs have reached out to several politicians, including Rep. Malliotakis.  Only Sen Scarcella-Spanton and DA McMahon have thus far voiced their support, but there may be other politicians willing to help these residents who appear to have been singled out for unfair treatment. 

At a previous press conference with Sen. Scarcella-Spanton, District Attorney McMahon said: “If possible, if [Staten Islanders] have the choice, they should pick a different carrier. This is a flagrant example of unfair practices.”

“It’s completely unacceptable,” Scarcella-Spanton said. “These residents deserve equitable service, just like everybody else.”

Their law firm said: “This case challenges a discriminatory corporate policy that singles out Park Hill and Fox Hill. It is not a quibble about a lost package, nor an attempt to regulate UPS’s business choices. UPS’s disparate treatment of the minority residents of Fox Hill and Park Hill has nothing to do with Congress’s goals of deregulating the trucking industry.”

We asked the following questions of the law firm handling this case.  Questions in regular type, answers in bold: 

What are the legal grounds / case history applicable to this case? Why did your law firm choose to represent Mr. Flowers and the other tenants?

Advertisement

When Mr. Flowers approached us and said he and other tenants wanted help challenging UPS’s policy, which he and other residents had been struggling to change for years, our firms (Vladeck, Raskin, and Clark P.C., and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP) were pleased to support them. 

After UPS tried to dismiss Mr. Flowers’ claims, arguing he had an arbitration agreement and could only bring individual claims in arbitration, rather than class action claims in court, Prince Thomas, Aminat Fakunle, Madeline Brown, Jesse Torrence, Rochelle Torrence, Dulcemaria Rivera, and Yvette Perez joined Mr. Flowers as named plaintiffs.

The lawsuit claims that UPS engages in race discrimination under a disparate impact theory: that UPS treats the residents of Park Hill and Fox Hill complexes, who are 99% non-white, less well than similarly situated neighboring complexes with a higher proportion of white residents. 

This is a proposed class action, so the named plaintiffs and the law firms are proposing to represent people in the Park Hill and Fox Hill complexes dealing with the UPS policy. The Complaint asks the Court to order UPS to change the policy and to pay money damages.

Has UPS responded to the case with any solution other than litigation, such as a settlement and a policy change? Or have they only responded with their motionto dismiss?

The Court held two settlement conferences with the lawyers for UPS and the residents earlier this year. There has been no settlement. UPS withdrew its motion to dismiss while those discussions were happening, and renewed its motion to dismiss after the two conferences. The parties are also continuing to give the Court confidential settlement updates.

Have they addressed the community’s concerns in any way?

Nothing UPS has filed with the Court claims they have addressed concerns. UPS is seeking to dismiss the case on procedural grounds.  In addition to saying that some of the plaintiffs have arbitration agreements, they are arguing that UPS is exempt from the state civil rights laws in this case.

Has your office made any recommendations for how Mr. Flowers can bring more attention to this case?

As lawyers, our work is in the Court.

From Gordon Flowers letter to the press, one of the plaintiffs in the case:

​I am writing to bring your attention to a persistent issue regarding UPS delivery services in our community that mirrors the systemic failures recently highlighted in The New York Times.

​The article detailed the mounting challenges residents face with non package door to door delivery service UPS refuses to provide. In my own experience in a multi-unit residential complex, these delivery issues have moved beyond mere inconvenience; they now impact the safety and accessibility of our living environment.

​The lack of this service is discriminatory to racial demographics [that are]  predominantly black and Latinos of the neighborhood. I believe this is a matter of community equity and consumer rights that requires organized advocacy to ensure that residents of all ethnic types receive this paid reliable and essential service.

Outside of the lawsuit, Mr. Flowers has been working on an alternative proposal to Fox Hill Management to discuss implementation of a dedicated package delivery room as a practical solution to UPS delivery failures.

This may end up having a semi-political  solution related to public pressure from the community to get UPS to change its policy.  So, for instance, press conferences by local politicians, as have happened, protests across the street from the UPS depot, supporters calling the UPS hotline to ask about this issue and what they’re going to do to resolve it, along with other possibilities.  

We’ll be following up on this story as the lawsuit gains traction and the community pressure builds.  

Banner Image: Press conference. Image Credit – Mike DeCillis