UPS 2006 Annual Report Download - page 30

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 30 of the 2006 UPS annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 111

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111

on employee conditioning and safety-related habits. Our employee co-chaired health and safety committees
complete comprehensive facility audits and injury analyses, and recommend facility and work process changes.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various class-action
allegations under state wage-and-hour laws. In one of these cases, Marlo v. UPS, which has been certified as a
class action in a California federal court, plaintiffs allege that they improperly were denied overtime, and seek
penalties for missed meal and rest periods, and interest and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class
of 1,200 full-time supervisors. The court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS on all claims and plaintiffs
have appealed. We have denied any liability with respect to these claims and intend to vigorously defend
ourselves in this case. At this time, we have not determined the amount of any liability that may result from this
matter or whether such liability, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations, or liquidity.
In another case, Cornn v. UPS, which has been certified as a class action in a California federal court,
plaintiffs allege that they were improperly denied wages and/or overtime and meal and rest periods. Plaintiffs
purport to represent a class of approximately 23,600 drivers and seek back wages, penalties, interest and
attorneys’ fees. UPS has agreed in principle to settle this matter in full for a total payment of $87 million. On
December 6, 2006, the court granted tentative approval of the settlement.
We are named as a defendant in four putative class action lawsuits filed in federal courts, alleging a
conspiracy relating to certain surcharges by a number of air cargo carriers. We are not named as a defendant in at
least eighty-six related cases that make similar allegations. These cases have been consolidated in a Multi-
District Litigation proceeding pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
UPS was not included as a defendant in the amended consolidated complaint on which the Multi-District
Litigation is proceeding. In addition, in July 2006, we were named as a defendant in a comparable lawsuit filed in
the Ontario (Canada) Superior Court of Justice. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these cases.
We are a defendant in various other lawsuits that arose in the normal course of business. We believe that the
eventual resolution of these cases will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations, or liquidity.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
None
15