Can a company that uses progressive discipline for some employees be forced to use it for all employees? A new decision from the District of Connecticut says no, and the reasoning provides a useful roadmap for employers who want to preserve their at-will flexibility. It also reinforces a notion that employment law attorneys often stress to clients: That employee handbook may come in handy one day.
In Pons v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 3:24-CV-1029 (SFR) (D. Conn. July 16, 2026), Judge Sarah F. Russell granted UPS summary judgment on all five of the plaintiff’s claims: wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel. The common thread running through each claim was the plaintiff’s belief that UPS had committed itself to progressive discipline before termination. The court disagreed at every turn.
The Facts
Ramon Pons was hired by UPS in August 2021 as a part-time supervisor. In August 2023, he submitted an ethics concern alleging that a coworker, Gabrielle Dunn, had made threatening and racially charged comments to him, including the use of a racial slur. UPS investigated, substantiated Pons’ complaint, and terminated Dunn in September 2023 for violating its Professional Conduct and Anti-Harassment policy.
Then the tables turned. After her termination, Dunn submitted her own ethics concern alleging that Pons also used the n-word at work. UPS investigated again, and Pons submitted a written statement admitting that he used the word “when speaking to two part-time Supervisors that I consider friends outside of UPS.” The investigator interpreted the statement as an admission of use at work. A manager reviewed the findings and recommended termination. Pons was fired in November 2023.
Pons sued, arguing that UPS should have given him progressive discipline before firing him and that his termination was retaliatory for having reported Dunn.
The Wrongful Discharge Claim Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-49
Pons’ public policy claim relied on Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-49 and the Connecticut Supreme Court’s framework in Parsons v. United Technologies Corp., 243 Conn. 66 (1997). Under Parsons, an employee can bring a wrongful discharge claim if the employee was (1) discharged, (2) for refusing to work, (3) under conditions that pose a substantial risk of death, disease, or serious physical harm.
The court assumed for argument that Dunn’s threats satisfied the third element. The problem for Pons was element two. There was no evidence that Pons ever refused to work at UPS. He filed an ethics complaint, UPS terminated Dunn, and Pons continued to work. Only after Dunn filed her own counter-complaint did UPS investigate and terminate Pons.
The court also addressed the retaliation angle and concluded that no reasonable juror could find retaliatory animus. UPS had substantiated Pons’ complaint and fired Dunn. Pons was terminated three months later, only after an independent investigation into his own policy violation. The sequence of events simply did not support an inference of retaliation.
The Breach of Contract and Related Claims
The contract claims are where the decision is most instructive for employers. Pons argued that UPS created an implied contract requiring progressive discipline through statements by supervisors at meetings and the general practice of using progressive discipline.
The court rejected this, pointing to UPS’ layered disclaimers. The Employee Reference Guide stated on its preface page that “neither this Guide nor any other company document confers any contractual right, either express or implied.” The Code of Business Conduct included an express disclaimer on its back cover. The Policy Book stated in its preface that it “is not a contract of employment.” Pons argued the disclaimer was insufficient because it appeared “at the bottom of an unsigned page,” but the court noted it was printed on the back cover of the booklet, “visible without even having to open the Code.”
As for supervisor statements, Pons testified that a full-time supervisor “would sit down and talk about these write-ups that he expected from part-time supervisors who weren’t performing in a certain way.” But when asked whether the supervisor specifically said “we won’t fire anyone until they’ve gotten a write-up,” Pons said no. The court held that an implied contract requires “actual agreement,” and Pons’ subjective belief that a progressive discipline policy should be used does not bind UPS without evidence it intended to be bound.
The negligent misrepresentation claim failed for similar reasons. The court drew a careful distinction: supervisors said progressive discipline “should be used,” not that it “would be used” in every case. A statement that something should be done is not a statement of fact that it will be done. The court also noted that Pons himself admitted in his deposition that UPS could fire employees without progressive discipline for certain conduct.
The court’s conclusion on this point is worth highlighting: “A company that uses progressive discipline for some employees, and discusses that preference, is not obligated to use progressive discipline for all employees. If the comments regarding write-ups were actionable, then no company could maintain at-will employment while also performing any write-ups on underperforming employees or other disciplinary actions that fell short of termination.”
The promissory estoppel claim failed because the supervisor statements did not rise to the level of a “clear and definite promise.” Saying a policy “should be used” is a “mere expression of intention, hope, desire, or opinion” rather than a commitment.
Why This Matters for Connecticut Employers
This decision reaffirms several principles that employers would be wise to internalize.
First, disclaimers work. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact on the contract claim because UPS disclaimed contractual obligations in three separate documents. The disclaimers were clear, they were in the preface pages or covers of the handbooks, and they did not need to be signed to be effective. For employers who are still running without at-will disclaimers in their handbooks, this is your reminder.
Second, you can use progressive discipline without being bound to it. Many employers understandably worry that having a progressive discipline process creates an implied promise. This decision confirms the principle that discussing progressive discipline and using it in some cases does not mean you must use it in all cases. The key is the presence of clear disclaimers and the absence of any definitive promise to the contrary.
Third, the Parsons framework remains narrow. To bring a wrongful discharge claim under § 31-49, the employee must show a refusal to work in unsafe conditions. Filing an internal complaint is not the same as refusing to work. That distinction protected UPS here and will protect other employers who take complaints seriously and investigate them.
Fourth, consistent enforcement of workplace policies supports termination decisions. UPS terminated Dunn for using a racial slur. When it learned that Pons also used the same language, it applied the same policy to him. That consistency made it difficult for Pons to claim retaliation.
Recent Comments