Amalgamated Transit Union v. Chattanooga Area Reg'l Transp. Auth.

• Decision Date: 06 January 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1:18-CV-00067-JRG-SKL,1:18-CV-00067-JRG-SKL
• Citation: 431 F.Supp.3d 961
• Parties: AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1212, Plaintiffs, v. CHATTANOOGA AREA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY , Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

431 F.Supp.3d 961

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1212, Plaintiffs,

v. CHATTANOOGA AREA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY , Defendant.

No. 1:18-CV-00067-JRG-SKL

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Southern Division, at Chattanooga.

January 6, 2020

Michael P. Persoon, Thomas H. Geoghegan, Michael A. Schorsch, Despres, Schwartz & Geoghegan, Ltd., Chicago, IL, Jimmy F. Rodgers, Jr., Summers, Rufolo & Rodgers, P.C., Chattanooga, TN, for Plaintiffs.

Philip Aaron Wells, Ronald D. Wells, Stacy L. Archer, Robinson, Smith & Wells, Chattanooga, TN, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

J. RONNIE GREER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 43], Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 44], Plaintiffs' Response [Doc. 55], Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 46], Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 46-1], Defendant's Response [Doc. 53], Plaintiffs' Reply [Doc. 58], Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 63], and Plaintiffs' Response [Doc. 64]. For the reasons herein, the Court will grant Defendant's motion to dismiss in part and deny it in part, deny Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and grant Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority ("CARTA") is a public transit authority that the City of Chattanooga created through its authority under Tennessee statute. [Def.'s Resp. Undisputed Facts, Doc. 54, at 1]. Under Chattanooga code, CARTA has legal authority to operate buses in Chattanooga, [Chattanooga, Tenn., Code § 23-1], and it has a legal obligation to hold monthly board meetings, [id. § 23-3(b) ]. CARTA's board is responsible for exercising "supervision" over CARTA's "operation." [Id. § 23-3(d) ].¹ In August 2015, CARTA enacted Resolution 566, whose full title reads: "A Resolution to Establish a Policy and Procedure for Oral Presentation of Public Comments at Board Meetings of the Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority." [Res. 566, Doc. 43-2, at 1].

In Resolution 566, CARTA acknowledges that its meetings are "open to attendance by members of the general public" and that "the general public from time to time request the opportunity to address the CARTA Board pertaining to items which may or may not be part of the scheduled business agenda for the Board meeting." [Id. ]. Also, CARTA adopted various policies and procedures for oral presentations in Resolution 566, allowing for, on one hand, a public-comment session at its meetings but striving to, on the other hand, prevent the public from becoming disruptive of CARTA's business agenda. Those policies and procedures include requirements that speakers must provide CARTA with three days' advance notice of the subject matter of their presentations, and the subject matter must, in the view of CARTA's chairman, be "reasonably connected" to CARTA's "business, operations, and policies." [Id. at 2]. Also, Resolution 566 prohibits speakers from "denigrat[ing] any other entity or individual." [Id. ].²

In December 2017, Plaintiff Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1212 ("ATU Local 1212")—the local affiliate of Plaintiff Amalgamated Transit Union ("ATU"), an international labor organization that represents transit workers, [Def.'s Resp. Undisputed Facts at 2]—issued a press release, announcing that it would hold a rally outside Chattanooga's city council building, [Press Release, Doc. 47-7, at 1]. In the press release, Kathryn Smith—who is ATU Local 1212's president and a bus driver in CARTA's employment, [Def.'s Resp. Undisputed Facts at 2]—said that the rally's purpose was to protest CARTA's treatment of its bus drivers, who were union members of ATU Local 1212; discrimination by management; and safety issues:

The Union, representing more [than] 100 CARTA bus, shuttle, paratransit and incline operators and maintenance workers, says a bus driver shortage is threatening public safety and service by forcing overtime work. Furthermore, management is jeopardizing safety by putting unsafe buses on the streets and scheduling bus routes that do not allow sufficient time for bathroom breaks for drivers.

"Safety is job number one and overworking bus operators because of a shortage of qualified drivers for countless hours without a break defies common sense," says Local 1212 President Kathryn Smith. "This is a fatal accident waiting to happen. It's time to stop threatening drivers who don't want to work overtime and instead focus on ensuring safety and service for riders."

Furthermore, the Local charges discrimination by CARTA management in disciplining African-American and female workers differently than other workers.

"We will not be silent and let the CARTA get away with this," Smith continued. "It's time for CARTA Executive Director Lisa Maragnano and her lackeys to put riders and safety first."

[Press Release at 1].

After ATU Local 1212 held its rally—which received coverage from the local media, [Def.'s Resp. Undisputed Facts at 6]—Ms. Smith sent a letter to CARTA, requesting permission to speak during the public-comment session of CARTA's meeting for the month of December, [Smith Letter, Doc. 43-4, at 1]. She identified three topics that she wished to address at the meeting: (1) working conditions, (2) safety and service, and (3) discrimination. [Id. ]. In response, CARTA's board chairman, Steve Jett, rejected her request, writing, in part:

Ms. Smith, as a policy-making body, the CARTA Board does not discuss specific personnel issues at Board meetings, so your request will not be on the December 21 agenda.

Please note that I am aware of your statements to the news media and have discussed at length with CARTA management about your perceived concerns and management's efforts to address them. I believe that management is doing, and will continue to do, all that can reasonably be done to address your concerns, given CARTA's limitations in the areas of physical facilities and personnel resources.

[Jett E-mail, Doc. 43-5, at 1]. In lieu of speaking at the meeting, Ms. Smith ultimately agreed to participate in a private meeting with CARTA's management. [Def.'s Resp. Undisputed Facts at 7].

In February 2018, Ms. Smith again requested permission to speak at CARTA's monthly meeting and identified "workplace business etc." as her topic. [Smith E-mail, Doc. 43-8, at 1]. Chairman Jett, however, again denied her request, writing, in part:

As you know, CARTA several years ago adopted a policy which allows a member of the general public to briefly address the CARTA board on matters of relevance or importance to CARTA.

However, ATU Local 1212 is not a part of the "general public." Rather it is the labor union which represents a portion of CARTA drivers and employees....

Our collective bargaining agreement establishes the appropriate procedures for the union to express its grievances[ ] [and] for CARTA's management to address and deal with those grievances....

Because CARTA and the union long ago agreed that the collective bargaining agreement would serve as the "terms of engagement" between the two organizations, we are not approving your request to be allowed to address the board.

....

[W]e will not ... open up the board meetings for presentation of open-ended grievances that should be addressed under our collective bargaining agreement.

[Second Jett E-mail, Doc. 43-9, at 1–2].

In March, Ms. Smith again requested permission to speak at CARTA's monthly meeting, [Second Smith E-mail, Doc. 43-10, at 1], but Mr. Jett again denied her request:

Kathy, as I have explained previously, the Board is not the place to discuss and negotiate personnel issues of the sort you have identified. Issues o[f] that sort are to be resolved in accordance with the agreed terms of our mutual Collective Bargaining Agreement. Attached is a copy of my email last month giving a more detailed explanation.

[Third Jett E-mail, Doc. 43-10, at 1]. Chairman Jett proposed that Ms. Smith once again meet privately with CARTA's management. [Id. ]. In reply, Ms. Smith reasserted her desire to speak at the upcoming monthly meeting: "As we have stated before Local 1212 is asking to speak about issues that affect the general public in terms of public saftey [sic], etc. Please give us time to speak. Thank you." [Smith Reply Letter, Doc. 43-11, at 1]. Ms. Smith, however, did not receive permission to speak, and on the day following the meeting, Mr. Jett sent an e-mail to Ms. Smith, re-proposing a private meeting with CARTA's management. [Fourth Jett E-mail, Doc. 47-10, at 3]. On March 23, ATU and ATU Local 1212's legal counsel threatened CARTA with federal litigation unless it permitted ATU and ATU Local 1212's members to speak at its meetings and rescinded or amended Resolution 566. [Counsel's Letter, Doc. 63-1, at 1–3].

On April 9, Ms. Smith, for the fourth time, requested permission to speak at CARTA's monthly meeting, and on April 13, Chairman Jett responded by granting her request. [Third Smith E-mail, Doc. 43-24, at 1; Fifth Jett E-mail, Doc. 43-24, at 1]. Specifically, Chairman Jett wrote in an e-mail: "Kathy, you are free to speak at the Board meeting as you requested. The topic identified in your March 15 letter to me ... is issues that affect the general public in terms of public safety. I assume that remains your topic." [Fifth Jett E-mail at 1]. In that same e-mail, however, he recited a few of Resolution 566's "ground rules," including CARTA's prerogative to prohibit speakers from raising "disagreements" about "personnel decisions." [Id. ]. Four days later, ATU and ATU Local 1212 filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that (1) CARTA is infringing their First Amendment right to free speech by excluding them from its monthly meetings and that (2) Resolution 566 is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment.³ [Compl., Doc. 1...