McCuiston v. Hoffa
| Decision Date | 06 January 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV. 04-70047.,CIV. 04-70047. |
| Citation | 351 F.Supp.2d 682 |
| Parties | Donna McCUISTON, Rick Miazga, and Ava Miller, Plaintiffs, v. James P. HOFFA; C.B. Conder a/k/a "Doc" Conder; and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, a Labor Organization, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Barbara M. Harvey, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Wayne A. Rudell, Rudell & O'Neill, Dearborn, MI, for Defendants.
All Defendants move for summary judgment on all three counts: (1) a violation of equal voting rights in violation of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(1); (2) a breach of the IBT constitution in violation of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185; and (3) a breach of duty of fair representation in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 159(a). For the reasons below, I GRANT in part and DENY in part the motion.
I briefly outlined the facts of this case in my previous opinion finding subject matter and personal jurisdiction. McCuiston v. Hoffa, 313 F.Supp.2d 710 (E.D.Mich.2004). However, since the motions now before me were made with the benefit of the factual record following discovery, I feel a statement of the facts as they now stand is in order.
Plaintiffs McCuiston and Miazga are both members in good standing of Teamsters Local Union 299. Plaintiff Ava Miller is a member in good standing of Teamsters Local 332. Defendant Hoffa is the President of Defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). Defendant Conder is IBT's Carhaul Director.
All Plaintiffs were eligible to vote, and did vote, on the proposed Michigan Office Workers Supplement, a contract under which all Plaintiffs work. Initially, the Michigan Office Workers Supplement was defeated, which led to a renegotiation. Unless stated otherwise, all further reference to the Michigan Office Workers Supplement or the contract at issue refer to this renegotiated document.
On July 23, 2003, Defendant Conder sent a memo to all local unions covered by the Michigan Office Workers Supplement regarding the voting on the contract. (Defs.' Mt. For Summ. J., Ex. I.) It advised the four local unions that they should hold a secret ballot vote, gave a ballot form to be copied for the use of voters,1 and instructed them to hold a meeting of eligible voters, "immediately after which the secret ballot vote should be conducted." (Id.) The memo went on to state: (Id.) I have previously held that the heads of various Locals who oversaw the vote on the Michigan Office Workers Supplement were doing so as agents of Defendant IBT, and the facts as they now stand only reinforce that holding. McCuiston, 313 F.Supp.2d at 717.
The vote on the revised Michigan Office Workers Supplement was apparently on July 24, 2003, although the cover letter for the ballots sent by Local 580, which was dated July 28, 2003, said that two voters cast their ballots, both of which were marked "yes," on July 17, 2003. (Defs.' Mt. for Summ. J., Ex. D.) Although at least one local union, Local 580, counted the votes before sending the ballots to Washington, D.C., at least one local union, Local 299, did not. (Defs.' Mt. for Summ. J., Ex. D; Scott Deposition, 132-3.)
According to her deposition, Tomica Harris, who worked as a secretary in the Carhaul Division of IBT at the time and reported to Defendant Conder, received, opened and counted the ballots. (Harris Dep. 12-3, 17-8.) Harris stated that all the ballots she received were not uniform in appearance, that she could not remember seeing at least one ballot before her deposition, and that the ballots from Local 580 had arrived by fax instead of through the mail, although a hard copy was eventually received. (Id. at 36, 38, 40.) According to Harris, sometime in the end of July, she reported the count to Conder, and returned the ballots to her unlocked desk drawer. (Id. at 31, 55.)
A press release of August 1, 2003 issued by Defendant IBT and quoting Defendant Conder announced the ratification and noted that because the contract had now been approved, the entire National Master Automobile Transporters Agreement and all supplements to it, including the Michigan Office Workers Supplement, were now in effect. (Defs.' Mt. for Summ. J., Ex. G.) The ratification of the contract was announced on August 1, 2003 via an e-mail from Defendants Hoffa and Conder. (Defs.' Mt. for Summ. J., Ex. F.)
On September 3, 2003, James DeHann, the independent election supervisor hired by the IBT, certified that the Michigan Office Workers Supplement had passed by a vote of 8 yes and 6 no. (DeHann Deposition, Ex. 2.) DeHann's letter to Defendant Conder certifying the voting results had an attachment of the official vote tallies2 in the first referendum, showing the results of the first Michigan Officer Workers Supplement vote, in which the Supplement was defeated. There was no attachment tabulating the result of the vote at issue in this case. DeHann admitted in his deposition that he had no personal knowledge of the vote at issue in this case at all — he had not observed the vote at issue, had never seen original or copied ballots on the vote at issue, and had not seen a breakout tabulation of the votes at issue. (DeHann Deposition, 21, 24.) According to his own statements, the "independent election supervisor" certified the eight to six result after receiving the one-line statement giving the totals in the form of the certification letter prepared for his signature by an employee of the IBT, Todd Thompson. (DeHann Deposition at 21.) DeHann charged Defendant IBT $503 for the half hour he spent "prepar[ing], sign[ing] and send[ing]" this letter, and gave his "Belated Congratulations!" in a handwritten note on his cover letter for the invoice. (Ex. 2 to DeHann Deposition, letter from DeHann to Carlow Scalf dated Sept. 3, 2003 and attached invoice).
Defendants have produced the following tally of the votes:
-------------------------------------------
Local Total
Union Ballots Yes No
Number Cast Ballots Ballots
-------------------------------------------
299 9* 5 3
-------------------------------------------
332 3 0 3
-------------------------------------------
580 2 2 0
-------------------------------------------
614 1 1 [0]†
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL 15 8 6
-------------------------------------------
* One ballot marked "abstain." (Defs. Mt. For Summ. J. 11.)
† Although Defendants' brief places a
"1" in this column, I presume that is a
typographical error
Plaintiffs offer the sworn declarations of Local 299 members Rick Miazga, Robert Bernard, Charlotte Howarth, Douglas Waxer, and Debbie Wyatt stating they voted "No".4
After Plaintiffs began to call into question the result of the vote, and after Harris had moved over to the IBT's Benefits department, Harris stated at her deposition that she was asked for the original documents and ballots. (Harris Deposition at 45.) According to her deposition, she had already given the original ballots and the fax from Local 580 to the legal division, but when she went back to her old desk to check for any other original documents, she found a mailed envelope containing Local 580's letter and ballots in an in-box, where she had not previously stored ballots. (Id. 45-6.)
In addition to a claim that the Plaintiffs' evidence is not sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment, Defendants raise a number of other issues: Plaintiffs' standing to bring this case; Plaintiffs' entitlement to either an equitable or legal remedy; and whether Defendants Hoffa and Conder can be held liable as a matter of law. Because Defendants' success on any one of the these three issues could preclude the need to examine all or part of the evidence in this case further, I will address them first.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot show a repeated or ongoing injury, and as such, do not have standing to bring this case, citing Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). In Lyons, the plaintiff was alleging that he was choked by police while in custody. The Court reasoned that because the plaintiff could not show he was likely to be arrested again, he could not show that the same harm was likely to occur again and therefore could not claim injunctive relief. Id. at 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660. Here, in contrast, Plaintiffs can show that they are extremely likely have another vote on a contract in 2008, and therefore risk having the exact harm occur to them in the future. In addition, as Plaintiffs are now working under a contract that was allegedly improperly ratified, Plaintiffs also allege a continuing harm in that sense.
Finally, the more relevant Supreme Court precedents would be those dealing with an interference with the right to vote by unions or by governmental election officials through miscounting or discrimination as to who is allowed to vote. In these cases, the Supreme Court has not had difficulty finding standing. See, e.g., Local No. 82 Furniture and Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen and Packers v. Crowley, 467 U.S. 526, 104 S.Ct. 2557, 81 L.Ed.2d 457 (1984); Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S.Ct. 525, 148 L.Ed.2d 388 (2000); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992).
However, Plaintiffs do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Mathson Industries, Inc.
...of harms weighing in favor of the prevailing party, and public interest weighing in favor of the injunction." McCuiston v. Hoffa, 351 F.Supp.2d 682, 689 n. 5 (E.D.Mich.2005); see also Audi AG v. D'Amato, 469 F.3d 534, 550 (6th Cir.2006). In addition to the arguments analyzed above regarding......
-
Moody v. Mich. Gaming Control Bd.
...Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief because their claims lack merit. See McCuiston v. Hoffa, 351 F.Supp. 2d 682, 689 (E.D. Mich. 2005)("At the permanent injunction stage, the requirements for injunctive relief are success on the merits . . . ."). Accordi......
-
Biondo v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
...agrees, as compensatory damages "cannot be awarded when the occurrence of damage itself is speculative." McCuiston v. Hoffa, 351 F.Supp.2d 682, 688 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (Feikens, J.) (citing Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555, 562 (1931)). The Biondos next argue ......