Henrikson v. Town of E. Greenwich

• Decision Date: 23 March 2015
• Docket Number: No. CA 11–381–M.,CA 11–381–M.
• Citation: 94 F.Supp.3d 180
• Parties: Kristen A. HENRIKSON, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF EAST GREENWICH, by and through its Finance Director, Kathleen RAPOSA; East Greenwich Fire Fighters Association, Local 3328, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL–CIO, CLC, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

94 F.Supp.3d 180

Kristen A. HENRIKSON, Plaintiff

v.TOWN OF EAST GREENWICH, by and through its Finance Director, Kathleen RAPOSA; East Greenwich Fire Fighters Association, Local 3328, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL–CIO, CLC, Defendants.

No. CA 11–381–M.

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.

Signed March 23, 2015.

William J. Conley, Jr., Law Office of William J. Conley Jr., Providence, RI, Deidre E. Carreno, Law Office of William J. Conley, Jr., East Providence, RI, for Plaintiff.

Elizabeth A. Wiens, Marc B. Gursky, Gursky Law Associates, North Kingstown, RI, Mary Welsh McBurney, James T. Murphy, Hanson Curran, LLP, Providence, RI, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN J. McCONNELL, JR., District Judge.

This lawsuit arises out of the employment of Kristen A. Henrikson by the Town of East Greenwich, Rhode Island (“Town”), and, specifically, out of the Town's failure to permit her, as a then-existing Union member filling the position of Chief Tax Clerk, to transfer into a vacant firefighter¹ position without fulfilling five test-based qualifications spelled out in the Application Package (“posting”) for the vacancy. (ECF No. 58–7 at 2). Ms. Henrikson contends that she was not obligated to fulfill those qualifications because she was applying as a “transfer” and not as a new hire, and that the only criteria she was required to meet were seven general items specified in the Collective Bargaining Agreement itself that were not specific to a firefighter position. She maintains that the Town's failure to transfer her was not only a breach of contract but an act of sex discrimination, both intentional and in its impact. She further contends that her Union failed to represent her in good faith and, moreover, conspired with the Town to deprive her of her civil rights.

Jurisdiction for the nine-count Complaint² is provided by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 and 1331, with respect to the claims that arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate for the state law claims of Breach of Contract and Breach of the Duty to Represent, as well as that claiming a violation of the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act, R.I.G.L. § 42–112 et seq. See, Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79, 83 (1st Cir.2010) (supplemental jurisdiction appropriate when state claims are so related they form part of the same case or controversy).

The Town and Union have filed for summary judgment on all counts, contending that none of Ms. Henrikson's claims should proceed to trial. (ECF Nos, 56, 57). The individual counts will be discussed below, but it suffices to say at this juncture that as to some claims the Defendants maintain there is no disputed evidence of material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law; as to others, the Defendants maintain the statute of limitations has expired; as to yet others, the Defendants maintain Ms. Henrikson has failed to exhaust state or administrative remedies.³ Ms. Henrikson has cross-filed for summary judgment with respect to Count VII (ECF 63), which alleges the Town breached its contract with her.

In summary, for the reasons that follow, the Court finds that (a) the Town and Union did not breach the collective bargaining agreement because the agreement allowed the Town to impose additional qualifications for becoming a firefighter and Ms. Henrikson did not meet them; (2) the Union did not breach its fiduciary duty to Ms. Henrikson because it correctly interpreted the agreement and therefore had no duty to further pursue Ms. Henrikson's grievance and (3) there is insufficient evidence of gender-based discrimination in the record to support any of the civil rights claims. Therefore the Court grants the Motions of the Town and Union for Summary Judgment as to all Counts, and denies Ms. Henrikson's cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

I.Factual Background

Few facts are disputed here, and none upon which liability rests. The undisputed facts reveal that Kristen Henrikson has been employed by the Town of East Greenwich for approximately 12 years, serving at the time she filed the lawsuit as Chief Tax Clerk of the East Greenwich Fire District.⁴ Sometime in December 2008, she expressed to then—Fire Chief John McKenna her desire to transfer to the position of Fire Marshall. At all relevant times, Ms. Henrikson has been a member of the East Greenwich Fire Fighters Association, Local 3328, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL–CIO, CLC (hereafter “Union”), and a Collective Bargaining Agreement (hereafter “CBA”)⁵ has governed certain aspects of employment, including the filling of vacancies. Ms. Henrikson was offered the position of Fire Marshal and accepted it.⁶ Shortly thereafter, however, she changed her mind and decided to stay as Chief Tax Clerk until she had completed the qualifications for the position of firefighter; at that point, she was working on but had not yet completed a certification as EMT–C[ardiac] that all parties agree was a qualification for a firefighter.

On May 26, 2009, Ms. Henrikson requested to be transferred to what was then a vacant firefighter position. Although she was still in the process of obtaining the EMT–C certification, she requested that the position be held open until she had finished that course. The Town did not do so. During the course of the next few months, a series of conversations and meetings occurring among Ms. Henrikson, the Fire Chief, Union officials, and the Union Executive Board, revealed their disagreement as to the qualifications required for an existing employee to transfer into a firefighter vacancy. As explicated in more detail below, Ms. Henrikson maintains that she is excused from meeting five test-based qualifications contained in the posting for firefighter (ECF No. 58–7) because she is an existing employee; her assertion is that only new hires must meet those test-based qualifications.

A meeting occurred on May 26, 2009, involving Ms. Henrikson, Chief McKenna, and William Purcell, the President of the Union, (ECF No. 48–4 at 24). According to Mr. Purcell's deposition, Chief McKenna was advocating that Ms. Henrikson bid for a firefighter vacancy and espousing the position that she met the qualifications for transfer. Id. Mr. Purcell, speaking for the Union, questioned whether she did and consulted with the Rhode Island State Association of Firefighters. (Id. at 29–30). The Defendants dispute the characterization of Chief McKenna's position, but this is not a material fact that influences the outcome of the summary judgment motions. Even had he initially thought differently, by letter dated July 10, 2009, Chief McKenna denied Ms. Henrikson's request to fill the vacant firefighter position (ECF No. 58–8) on the ground that she had not completed the required tests, (ECF No. 58–9).

Ms. Henrikson filed a grievance requesting that she be given the next available firefighter vacancy. (ECF No. 58–11). She met with the Executive Board of the Union and the Union denied the grievance three days later. (ECF No. 46–6). There is an appeal process outlined in the CBA if the Union is dissatisfied (ECF No. 58–2 at 33), but no appeal was taken and the Union failed to pursue the grievance. (ECF No. 63–4).

The operative event giving rise to the lawsuit concerns a second request by Ms. Henrikson on November 4, 2009, to be hired to fill another firefighter position that had become vacant. Ms. Henrikson appeared before the Board of Commissioners of the then-East Greenwich Fire District, but at its next meeting the Board rejected her transfer on the stated ground that she was not qualified; at this meeting, the Town formally took the same position as the Union that Ms. Henrikson had failed to successfully complete the five tests contained in the posting. (ECF No. 58–13 at 8–9; ECF No. 48–8 at 6–7).

Ms. Henrikson subsequently filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights. (ECF No. 58–16). The Commission found “no probable cause” and dismissed the action, but it issued Notices of Right to Sue. (ECF No. 3–2). This lawsuit followed.⁷

IIThe Core Disputed Legal Issue

The core dispute between the parties requires an interpretation of language in the CBA referencing the filling of vacancies either by transferring existing employees or by hiring new ones. Ms. Henrikson contends that the only qualifications she, as a transferring employee, must meet are seven non-job-specific criteria specified in ¶ 11–2 of the bargaining agreement. The seven relate to citizenship, a physical examination, “legal age of employment,” having and maintaining an EMT–C license and a RI driver's license, and motor vehicle and criminal history. The Town and the Union, however, contend that both transferring employees, including Ms. Henrikson, and new employees, must meet five additional firefighter-specific, test-based qualifications that are contained in the Application Package (“posting”) for the firefighter vacancy. (ECF No. 58–7 at 2) (physical performance assessment test, a written exam, a swim test, a ladder test, and an oral interview). There is no dispute that Ms. Henrikson meets the seven items specified in the CBA, but does not meet the five test-based qualifications contained in the posting.⁸

Because the Fire District did not consider Ms. Henrikson qualified for the firefighter position, it refused to include her on the “eligibility list” for that position. It is from the “eligibility list” that the Town chooses applicants. CBA § 11–1 (ECF No. 58–2 at 14).

Count VII, which alleges a breach of contract, directly turns on the resolution of the above dispute. If the contract allows the five test-based, job-specific qualifications, it has not been breached by the insistence of the Town that Ms. Henrikson meet them in order to qualify for employment as a firefighter. If, on the other hand, the CBA does not require transferred employees to successfully complete those five...