355 U.S. 41 (1957), 7, Conley v. Gibson
| Docket Nº: | No. 7 |
| Citation: | 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 |
| Party Name: | Conley v. Gibson |
| Case Date: | November 18, 1957 |
| Court: | United States Supreme Court |
Page 41
Argued October 21, 1957
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioners, who are Negro members of a union designated as their bargaining agent under the Railway Labor Act, brought a class suit against the union, its brotherhood and certain of their officers to compel them to represent petitioners without discrimination in protection of their employment and seniority rights under a contract between the union and the Railroad. They alleged that the Railroad had purported to abolish 45 jobs held by petitioners and other Negroes, but had employed whites in the same jobs (except in a few instances in which it had rehired Negroes to fill their old jobs with loss of seniority) and that, despite repeated pleas, the union had done nothing to protect petitioners from such discriminatory discharges. The District Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the National Railroad Adjustment Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the controversy. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held:
1. It was error to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction. Section 3 First (i) of the Railway Labor Act confers upon the Adjustment Board exclusive jurisdiction only over "disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers," whereas this is a suit by employees against their bargaining agent to enforce their statutory right not to be discriminated against by it in bargaining. Pp. 44-45.
2. The Railroad was not an indispensable party to this suit, and failure to join it was not a ground for dismissing the suit. P. 45.
3. The complaint adequately set forth a claim upon which relief could be granted. Pp. 45-48.
(a) The fact that, under the Railway Labor Act, aggrieved employees can file their own grievances with the Adjustment Board or sue the employer for breach of contract is no justification for the union's alleged discrimination in refusing to represent petitioners. P. 47.
(b) Failure of the complaint to set forth specific facts to support its general allegations of discrimination was not a sufficient
Page 42
ground for dismissal of the suit, since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. Pp. 47-48.
229 F.2d 436, reversed.
BLACK, J., lead opinion
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
Once again, Negro employees are here under the Railway Labor Act1 asking that their collective bargaining agent be compelled to represent them fairly. In a series of cases beginning with Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, this Court has emphatically and repeatedly ruled that an exclusive bargaining agent under the Railway Labor Act is obligated to represent all employees in the bargaining unit fairly and without discrimination because of race, and has held that the courts have power to protect employees against such invidious discrimination.2
This class suit was brought in a Federal District Court in Texas by certain Negro members of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, petitioners here, on behalf of themselves and other Negro employees similarly situated against the Brotherhood, its Local Union No. 28 and certain officers of both. In summary, the complaint
Page 43
made the following allegations relevant to our decision: Petitioners were employees of the Texas and New Orleans Railroad at its Houston Freight House. Local 28 of the Brotherhood was the designated bargaining agents under the Railway Labor Act for the bargaining unit to which petitioners belonged. A contract existed between the Union and the Railroad which gave the employees in the bargaining unit certain protection from discharge and loss of seniority. In May, 1954, the Railroad purported to abolish 45 jobs held by petitioners or other Negroes, all of whom were either discharged or demoted. In truth, the 45 jobs were not abolished at all, but instead filled by whites as the Negroes were ousted, except for a few instances where Negroes were rehired to fill their old jobs, but with loss of seniority. Despite repeated pleas by petitioners, the Union, acting...
To continue reading
FREE SIGN UP
-
105 B.R. 404 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1989), 2-86-0343, In re Lee Way Holding Co.
...with the allegations. Hishon v. King and Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-56, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Davis H. Elliot Co. v. Caribbean Utilities Co., 513 F.2d 1176, 1182 (6th Cir.1975). "The issue......
-
122 B.R. 871 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), 89 Civ. 7147 , Pioneer Commercial Funding Corp. v. United Airlines, Inc.
...doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). With these guidelines in mind, we can proceed to tackle the instant a. Pioneer Action As an initia......
-
132 B.R. 869 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill. 1991), 90 A 0934, In re Aluminum Mills Corp.
...the pleadings that the Committee can prove no set of facts in support of its claims which would entitle it to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Gorski v. Troy, 929 F.2d 1183, 1186 (7th Cir.1991). The issue is not whether the Committee w......
-
142 B.R. 61 (Bkrtcy.E.D.N.Y. 1992), 192-1110, In re Rifkin
...beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), made applicable to adversary proceedings in bankruptcy cases by Fed.R.Bank......
-
105 B.R. 404 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1989), 2-86-0343, In re Lee Way Holding Co.
...with the allegations. Hishon v. King and Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-56, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Davis H. Elliot Co. v. Caribbean Utilities Co., 513 F.2d 1176, 1182 (6th Cir.1975). "The issue......
-
122 B.R. 871 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), 89 Civ. 7147 , Pioneer Commercial Funding Corp. v. United Airlines, Inc.
...doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). With these guidelines in mind, we can proceed to tackle the instant a. Pioneer Action As an initia......
-
132 B.R. 869 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill. 1991), 90 A 0934, In re Aluminum Mills Corp.
...the pleadings that the Committee can prove no set of facts in support of its claims which would entitle it to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Gorski v. Troy, 929 F.2d 1183, 1186 (7th Cir.1991). The issue is not whether the Committee w......
-
142 B.R. 61 (Bkrtcy.E.D.N.Y. 1992), 192-1110, In re Rifkin
...beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), made applicable to adversary proceedings in bankruptcy cases by Fed.R.Bank......
-
The Evisceration of the Federal Securities Law
...assets in RBS’s portfolio” and that international accounting standards required RBS to disclose concentrations of credit risks. 63 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). 64 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 65 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 5......
-
Mass Preference Litigation: Strategies And Pitfalls (Including The Use Of Streamlined Procedures And Mediation)
...131 B.R. 979 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1991) ...................................................................................12 Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)...........................................................................................................2, 3 In re Conners, 125 B.R.......
-
Goren v. New Vision
...which would entitle [her] to relief.' " Strasburger v. Board of Educ., 143 F.3d 351, 359 (7th Cir.1998) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). Allegations of fraud, however, are subject to the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Ci......
-
Order Dismissing Cases
...that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Id. (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 44-46 (1957)). In their joint motion to dismiss, 30 of the Issuer Defendants claim that the demand letters, and the follow-up letters, sent by ......
-
The problem with pretext.
...(137.) Lingle, 544 U.S. at 542. (138.) Id. (internal citation and emphasis omitted). (139.) Id. at 544. (140.) 550 U.S. 544 (2007). (141.) 355 U.S. 41 (1957). (142.) Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. (143.) Id. at 555. (144.) Id. at 556. (145.) Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). (146.......
-
Taming Twombly, even after Iqbal.
...544 (2007). (2) Id. at 570. (3) Id. (4) Id. at 561 (noting that the passage "has earned its retirement"); see Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). (5) 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1953-54 (2009). (6) See, e.g., Kevin M. Clermont & Stephen C. Yeazell, Inventing Tests, Destabilizing......
-
PLEADING PATENT INFRINGEMENT: RES IPSA LOQUITUR AS A GUIDE.
...(32.) See A. Benjamin Spencer, Understanding Pleading Doctrine, 108 MICH. L. REV. 1, 2 (2009). (33.) Id. at 4-5 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). (34.) See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). (35.) Spencer, supra note......
-
Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties, Inc.; To Prove That Your Same-Sex Co-Worker Sexually Harassed You, First Prove That He Was Sexually Attracted To You
...Hampel, 729 N.E.2d at 728-29. [241] Id. at 730. [242] Id. [243] Id. [244] Hampel, 89 Ohio St.3d 169 (2000). [245] See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) (holding that a single breach of the by union to fail to represent fairly, and without discrimination, all of the members of the ......