• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

HRMorning

  • FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
  • HR DEEP DIVES
  • PODCASTS
    • VOICES OF HR
    • WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP TODAY
  • LOGIN
  • SIGN UP FREE
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • HR Technology
  • Payroll
  • Management
  • Women’s Leadership
  • More
    • Talent Management
    • Performance Management
    • Leadership & Strategy
    • Compensation
    • Policy & Procedures
    • Wellness
    • Staff Departure
    • HR Career & Self-Care
    • Health Care
    • Retirement Plans
  • Employment Law

Employee Scores Monster Verdict in Bias Suit

Tom D'Agostino
By: Tom D'Agostino
  • Share on

About the Author

Tom D’Agostino is an attorney and legal editor who has more than 30 years of experience writing about employment law, disability law and education law trends. He earned his B.A. degree from Ramapo College of New Jersey and his J.D. from the Duquesne University School of Law. D’Agostino, who is a member of the Pennsylvania bar, is a past member of the American Bar Association’s Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities and the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Legal Services to Persons with Disabilities Committee. He has provided technical assistance in the production of segments for television’s ABC World News and 20/20, and he has been quoted in periodicals including USA Today. He is also a past contributing author of Legal Rights of Persons with Disabilities: An Analysis of Federal Law, which is a comprehensive two-volume treatise addressing the legal rights of people with disabilities. Tom is passionate about baseball and authentic Italian food. When not writing, he enjoys spending time with family.

Show Less
Last Updated: September 20, 2024
3 minute engagement
Verdicts & Settlements

A federal jury in Washington state has returned a $237.6 million verdict in favor of a Black employee who filed a racial bias suit. The verdict, which is subject to appeal, includes $198 million in punitive damages.

Tahvio Gratton began working as a package car cover driver at a Seattle UPS location in 2016. In that role, his main responsibility was to cover for drivers who had regular routes and were out for the day.

After two years, Gratton moved to Yakima, Washington, and began working for UPS there.

The move to Yakima brought tension and problems. In April of 2018, Gratton filed a grievance to say he had been laid off many times without advance notice and in violation of his contractual guarantee to work a certain number of hours.

Gratton, who is Black, said he was laid off instead of white drivers with less seniority. As a result of the grievance, he was awarded back wages for hours that he missed.

Did Supervisor Call Him ‘Boy’?

Soon after the grievance was filed, a supervisor accompanied Gratton on a shift and allegedly repeatedly referred to him using the word “boy.” The supervisor allegedly continued to refer to Gratton as “boy” even after Gratton asked him to stop.

Gratton alleged that when he reported the supervisor’s conduct, a higher-up shrugged him off and said, “That’s just the way [the supervisor] talks.”

Gratton said other supervisors retaliated against him for reporting the supervisor’s alleged misconduct, including by verbally abusing him and denying him work.

Additional grievances by Gratton followed, after which supervisors allegedly began searching for reasons to terminate his employment – including taking a 29-minute lunch instead of a full 30-minute lunch.

Two co-workers said they saw two supervisors discussing their desire to get rid of Gratton.

Gratton also said he was berated for having tattoos while white employees were not.

UPS gave Gratton his own route in October of 2018, but he says it was the most undesirable route available.

In the middle of that month, he filed administrative charges of race discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

Others Support Bias Suit Allegations

Other Black employees at UPS’ Yakima location reported similar incidents of racial harassment and retaliation.

UPS dismissed Gratton in late October of 2021 based on alleged sexual harassment. Gratton said he merely tripped and reached out to steady himself on a female employee, while UPS said he touched the female employee inappropriately.

Gratton sued UPS in October of 2022, alleging discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation.

A key development in the bias suit occurred in April of 2024, when the federal district court handling the case declined to entirely grant a UPS motion for summary judgment and cleared a path for the matter to reach a jury.

Bias Suit Produces Decision

More specifically, the court ruled in the bias suit that Gratton’s claims of unlawful retaliation and wrongful termination should proceed. Importantly, it also specifically rejected the employer’s motion to essentially strike Gratton’s claim for punitive damages.

As to retaliation, the court said Gratton engaged in protected activity when he filed an administrative charge of discrimination and grievances. In addition, it noted that Gratton was terminated after he engaged in the protected activity, and it rejected the employer’s argument that too much time passed between the protected activity and the adverse action to justify a finding that there was a causal connection between the two.

Bias Suit Goes to Jury

Even though UPS said Gratton was let go due to sexual harassment, there were different accounts of what happened that day and it was for a jury to decide the real reason for the decision to terminate his employment, the court said.

The jury trial in the bias suit began in early September of 2024. The jury awarded $39.6 million for emotional distress together with $198 million in punitive damages.

UPS has indicated that it plans to appeal the verdict.

Filed under
  • Employment Law
  • Share on

Get the HRMorning Newsletter

With HRMorning arriving in your inbox, you will never miss critical stories on labor laws, benefits, retention and onboarding strategies.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form

Free Training & Resources

Webinars

How Company Culture Boosts Employee Performance

Webinars

Top HR Trends and Priorities for 2026

Provided by Paycom

Webinars

Managing Performance in Times of Change

Webinars

Grow Your Future Workforce from Within

SPONSORED CONTENT

HR Technology

sponsored content
The Best AI Software for HR Automation

Courtesy of G-P

Talent Management

sponsored content
Powerful Employee Retention Strategies for 2025: How to Keep Your Best People

Courtesy of PEOPLEGURU

Benefits

Health Care

Wellness

sponsored content
Proven Results: 5 Ways Teladoc Health Chronic Condition Management Transforms HR Outcomes

Courtesy of TELADOC HEALTH

Further Reading

  • Employment Law
Interviewing an Internal Candidate: What a $15K Blunder Looks Like

As an HR pro, you know the importance of remaining professional while interviewing an internal candidate. That includes both avoiding certa...

  • Employment Law
Not again! Employer will pay $42K for all-too-common accommodation mistake

When it comes to accommodation of employee disabilities, you would think employers would learn from others’ mistakes. But it just does...

  • Employment Law
  • HR Technology
AI Hiring Discrimination: New Ruling in the Workday Lawsuit

AI is changing hiring fast. Workday’s AI hiring discrimination lawsuit sends a clear warning: failing to spot potential algorithmic bias ...

  • Employment Law
Get ready: Supreme Court raises the bar on religious accommodation duty

As we predicted, the U.S. Supreme Court has expanded the duty of employers to provide religious accommodation to employees under Title VII....

  • Employment Law
10 Employment Law Risks HR Must Track in 2026

If you’re looking for employment law predictions for 2026, a new survey from Norton Rose Fulbright highlights where employment and la...

  • Employment Law
New Race Discrimination Lawsuit – Why Court Backed Employer

HR pros can learn a lot about how to deal with alleged race discrimination at work from a new federal appeals court decision. The appeal...

Get the latest from HRMorning in your inbox PLUS immediately access 10 FREE HR guides.

I WANT MY FREE GUIDES
HR Morning Logo
  • Facebook
  • Linked In
  • ABOUT HRMORNING
  • ADVERTISE WITH US
  • WRITE FOR US
  • CONTACT
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • Performance Management
  • HR Technology
  • Leadership & Strategy
  • Compensation
  • Policy & Procedures
  • Wellness
  • Staff Departure
  • HR Career & Self-Care
  • Health Care
  • Retirement Plans
  • DEI

HRMorning, part of the Rover Insights Network, provides the latest HR and employment law news for HR professionals in the trenches of small-to-medium-sized businesses. Rather than simply regurgitating the day's headlines, HRMorning delivers actionable insights, helping HR execs understand what HR trends mean to their business.

Powered By Rover Insights
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Copyright© 2026 Rover Insights
HRMorning Logo

WELCOME BACK!

Enter your username and password below to log in

Forget Your Username or Password?

Reset Password

Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.

Log In

Why do we need your credit card for a free trial?

We ask for your credit card to allow your subscription to continue should you decide to keep your membership beyond the free trial period.  This prevents any interruption of content access.

Your card will not be charged at any point during your 21 day free trial
and you may cancel at any time during your free trial.

During your free trial, you can cancel at any time with a single click on your “Account” page.  It’s that easy.