Case Citator › Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
502 F.3d 1176
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
31 of 31
Citing cases (total)
31
Treatment dates
2011–2023
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc. has been overruled in part and superseded by statute in another respect; three confirmed treatments are listed below. After polling its full court, the Tenth Circuit in Lincoln v. BNSF Railway Co. overturned the rule, repeated in Jones, that filing an EEOC charge is a jurisdictional prerequisite.
More on how this was screened

Smith v. Cheyenne Retirement Investors later recognized Lincoln's change while continuing to cite Jones's separate charge-scope rule. The 2008 ADA amendments also broadened the “regarded as” standard Jones applied, and the Seventh Circuit questioned its inference from a 100% healed policy. All 31 flagged citations have been read.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

31 later cases cite Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc.; 31 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • With authorization from the full court, the Tenth Circuit overruled the jurisdictional-exhaustion rule that Jones had repeated; Jones's distinct charge-scope rule remains in use.

    Lincoln v. BNSF Railway Co. · Tenth Circuit · filed

    On appeal, Appellants, and the EEOC as amicus, ask this panel to overturn this court’s precedent that filing an EEOC charge is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit. After polling the full court, we overturn our precedent that filing an EEOC charge is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Superseded by statute

  • The 2008 ADA amendments broadened the “regarded as” standard that Jones had applied under earlier law; the district court declined to use Jones's superseded substantially-limits requirement.

    Brasier v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. · D. Ariz. · filed

    7 involve an application of the pre-amendment law. See, e.g., Jones v. United Parcel Serv., 8 Inc., 502 F.3d 1176, 1190 (10th Cir. 2007) (applying Sutton’s requirement that “the 9 employer must mistakenly believe that [an] impairment substantially limits the 10 employee”); Carrillo v. Union Pac. R.R., No. EP-21-CV-00026, 2022 WL 3224000, at 11 *6–8 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2022) (noting that the 2008 amendments broadened the regarded- 12 as prong but nevertheless adopting the narrower analysis from Jones), appeal docketed, 13 No. 22-50782 (5th Cir. Sep. 1, 2022). The Court declines to follow them.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Questioned

  • The Seventh Circuit said Jones's inference from a 100% healed policy seemed inconsistent with Supreme Court reasoning, while noting that its circuit had not decided the question.

    Powers v. USF Holland, Inc. · Seventh Circuit · filed

    support of his position, Powers cites decisions from other circuits which have held that a “100% healed” policy could be sufficient to establish that an employer “regarded” the plaintiff as substantially limited in the major life activity of working. See, e.g., Jones v. UPS, Inc., 502 F.3d 1176, 1188-89 (10th Cir. 2007); Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 251 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir. 2001); Henderson, 247 F.3d at 653. This circuit has yet to specifically address that question, but these holdings seem inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that “an employer is free to decide that physical characteristics or medical conditions that do not rise to the level of an impairment — such as one’s height, build, or singing voice — are preferable to others, just as it is free to decide that some limiting, but not substantially limiting, impairments make individuals less than ideally suited for a job.” Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 490- 91 (1999).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace