Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1546 v. Capital Area Transit Sys.
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-00888-BAJ-RLB |
| Decision Date | 29 November 2021 |
| Parties | AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 1546, ET AL. v. CAPITAL AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
BRIAN A. JACKSON JUDGE.
Before the Court is Defendant's Renewed Motion To Compel Arbitration And To Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration And Motion To Dismiss Claims Pursuant To Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. 23). Plaintiffs Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1546, Toye Hebert, and Shavez Smith oppose Defendant's Motion. (Doc. 30). For the following reasons Defendant's Motion will be granted in part, and this action will be stayed to allow the parties' remaining arbitral proceedings to conclude.
This labor dispute features a global pandemic, a sex tape [1] and allegations of union-busting after an employee boycott of a public Juneteenth celebration. The question presently before the Court is whether to stay this case to allow the parties to conclude parallel arbitral proceedings that will resolve at least some of the issues in dispute. In answering this question, the Court assumes the following allegations are true.
Defendant Capital Area Transit System (“CATS”) is an independent agency that provides bus service to residents and visitors of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. CATS' employees-specifically its drivers and mechanics-are represented by Plaintiff Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1546 (“Local 1546” or the “Union”).
On June 22, 2018, CATS and Local 1546 executed a Labor Agreement (the “Agreement”) setting forth terms regarding “rates of pay, wages, hours, and working condition of employment” for all covered employees. (Doc. 7-3 at 3, 42). The Agreement expressly recognizes Local 1546 “as the exclusive bargaining representative of all ... employees covered by this Agreement.” (Id. at 3).
Most relevant here, the Agreement establishes a detailed process for resolving workplace disputes between CATS and its covered employees. (See Doc. 7-3). Article 4 (“Discipline”) states that “[n]o employee shall be disciplined except for just cause, ” and further provides that in the event CATS proceeds with a disciplinary action, covered employees “shall have the right to be heard in accordance with the grievance procedure as described in Article 5.” (Id. at 5).
Article 5 (“Grievances and Grievance Procedure”), in turn, states that “any grievance shall be settled according to the grievance and arbitration procedures herein contained.” (Id. at 10).
Article 6 (“Arbitration and Arbitration Procedure”) sets forth the rules governing arbitral proceedings between CATS and covered employees, and states that “[t]he decision by a majority of the Board of Arbitration shall become final and binding on the parties to this Agreement when delivered to them in writing.” (Id. at 13).
Notably, the Agreement expressly defines “grievance” to include “[a]ny controversy between the Agency [CATS] and the Union [Local 1546] as to whether or not any employee suspended or discharged was so disciplined for cause.” (Id. at 10). Further, the Agreement lists various “[m]ajor rule infractions” which “may subject [an] employee to suspension or discharge, ” including “[g]ross misconduct.” (Id. at 6). “[A]ctions such as theft, sabotage, bullying, violence, sexual harassment, possession of firearms, and arson constitute gross misconduct.” (Id.).
The present dispute between CATS and Local 1546 began in mid-2020, after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic swept through Baton Rouge (and the rest of the country). As alleged, Local 1546 and its executive officers and board members repeatedly criticized CATS and CATS' CEO William Deville for failing “to provide drivers and mechanics with protective equipment, ” for failing to “enforce protocols to protect members from COVID 19 infection, including testing and contact tracing, ” and for “switching insurance brokers and saddling workers with higher costs.” (Doc. 17 at ¶¶ 13-14). Tensions boiled over in June 2020, when Local 1546's executive board urged its members to boycott CATS' annual Juneteenth celebration to protest “the removal of [Union President Yvette Rhines] from her light duty assignment.” (Id. at ¶¶ 19-20). According to Plaintiffs, “[t]he absence of CATS employees at a CATS event was an embarrassment and angered CATS management, ” prompting CATS to initiate “an investigation” into each of the Union's executive board members. (Id. At 21-22).
Allegedly, CATS' investigation was intended to harass, intimidate, and, ultimately, terminate the Union's executive officers and board members “in reprisal” for their criticism of CATS' pandemic response. (See id. at ¶¶ 37, 48). However, Plaintiffs expressly admit that, at the same time, CATS was also investigating a cellphone sex video featuring two CATS employees engaged in “consensual sex, ” which had been widely distributed among the Union's members, including its executive board. (Id. at ¶¶ 26-28). Although presently unclear whether (and to what extent) the sex tape featured in CATS' “investigation, ” it is undisputed that as of December 2020 CATS had “fired five of the six [Local 1546] officers.” (Id. at ¶ 36).
These firings prompted the Union, joined by Union President Yvette Rhines, Vice President George DeCuir, Treasurer Toye Hebert, and Executive Board Members Shavez Smith and Anthony Holmes (i.e., the five discharged officers) to sue CATS on December 31, 2020. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs' original complaint alleged that “[n]one of these systematic firings had anything to do with the efficient operation of the transit system, ” and instead were “reprisal for speech protected by the First Amendment and critical of CATS, ” with the ultimate goal of “eliminat[ing] the leadership of the ATU Local 1546, so as to set the stage for withdrawing recognition of the local union as its employees' bargaining representative.” (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 29). On this basis, Plaintiffs asserted that CATS' actions violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and association, thus entitling them to declaratory and injunctive relief protecting them from further reprisals. (Id. at p. 7). Additionally, the officer Plaintiffs sought reinstatement of their employment at CATS. (Id.).
On March 29, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, which amplifies and adds detail to Plaintiffs' original allegations. (Doc. 17). Notably, Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint persists in its core allegation that Local 1546's officers were fired in retaliation for “engaging speech protected by the First Amendment, ” as part of a broader “plan to ... ‘replace' the union leadership.” (Id. at 1). And, as in the Original Complaint, the officer Plaintiffs seek reinstatement of their employment with CATS. (Id.; see also id. at 13).
Even as Plaintiffs have pursued this litigation, they have also proceeded with binding arbitration under the Agreement. These parallel arbitral proceedings have, as of now, resulted in a decision upholding the termination of Treasurer Hebert. (See Doc. 16-1). Notably, the Arbitrator found “just cause” for Treasurer Hebert's termination based on her “gross misconduct, ” which, among other things, included possession and distribution of the sex tape. (Id. at 18-21). Relevant here, the Arbitrator concluded:
Harassment of a sexual nature of any employee in the workplace with enough frequency and severity to create a hostile or offensive work environment is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The substantiated harassment seen in this matter, at the hands of the Grievant [Hebert] and others, represents a reprehensible example of sexual harassment prohibited by law, the Agency's work rules, and the parties' Contract. The Agency's efforts to eradicate sexual harassment from the workplace is a responsible effort to protect their [sic] employees. It is also legally required. Employees who refuse to cooperate and be truthful in that effort have forsaken the right to remain employed in that workplace. The Grievant's harassing behavior is compounded by her dishonesty and her efforts to stymie the Agency's investigation of the harassment, for which she was specifically terminated.
(Id. at 18-19). The Arbitrator's Decision avoided the question of whether Treasurer Hebert's termination was part of a “larger conspiracy by [CATS] to eradicate the Union, ” determining that “[t]hese allegations ... have no established relevancy to the narrow issue of whether or not the Grievant was terminated for just cause for her unilateral conduct in the workplace.” (Id. at 19).
Additionally, these parallel proceedings have prompted three Plaintiffs- President Rhines, Vice President DeCuir, and Board Member Holmes-to resolve their claims against CATS and withdraw from this case. (See Docs. 17 at ¶¶ 2-6; 34; 35).
Now before the Court is CATS' Renewed Motion To Compel Arbitration And To Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration And Motion To Dismiss Claims Pursuant To Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. 23), which seeks an order compelling the remaining Plaintiffs to submit their claims to arbitration under the Agreement, or staying this action to allow existing arbitral proceedings to run their course. Alternatively, CATS seeks dismissal, asserting that the remaining Plaintiffs have failed to state a cognizable First Amendment violation.
Plaintiffs oppose CATS' Motion, contending that there is no need to compel arbitration because “[t]he parties have arbitrated and continue to arbitrate, ” (Doc. 30 at 4), that a stay of this case is inappropriate because Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims deserve immediate vindication, and that their First Amendment “reprisal” claims are adequately stated and withstand dismissal.
For reasons explained below, the Court determines that...
To continue reading
Request your trial