McKenzie-El v. Ports of Am.
| Decision Date | 12 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. ELH-19-1980 |
| Parties | RIKER MCKENZIE-EL, Plaintiff, v. PORTS OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Plaintiff Riker McKenzie-El filed this employment discrimination action against defendants Ports of America ("PAC"), Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore, Inc. ("STA"), and International Longshoremen's Association ("ILA"), alleging harassment, discrimination, and retaliation on the basis of race and sex. ECF 1 (the "Complaint"). According to plaintiff, he has worked as a longshoreman and elected union representative at the Port of Baltimore since 1977, during which time he has been subjected to discriminatory hiring and promotion practices and retaliation.
The Complaint contains four counts.1 Count I alleges racial discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. "Count Two" lodges a claim for sex discrimination under Title VII.2 In Count III, plaintiff asserts a claim forretaliation under Title VII. And, Count IV alleges racial discrimination, in violation the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.
The docket does not reflect that plaintiff has served either PAC or ILA. STA has moved to quash service of process. ECF 7. In addition, STA filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF 10. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 10-1) (collectively, the "Motion") and two exhibits. ECF 10-2 to ECF 10-3. Plaintiff agrees to the dismissal of Count II, alleging sex discrimination, but otherwise opposes the Motion. ECF 11 (the "Opposition"). He has also submitted five exhibits. ECF 12-1 to ECF 12-5. STA has replied (ECF 13, the "Reply"), and submitted seven exhibits. ECF 13-1 to ECF 13-7.
The Motion is fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve it. See Local Rule 105(6). For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion. Accordingly, the motion to quash shall be denied as moot.
Mr. McKenzie-El, an "African American and Asiatic male," has worked at the Port of Baltimore (the "Port") as a longshoreman since August 11, 1977. ECF 1, ¶ 10; see id. ¶¶ 13-14. According to plaintiff, he is employed by "Ports of America and the Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore," both of which "are members of STA, a multi-employer association representing employers in the Port of Baltimore." Id. ¶ 12. PAC "is a large terminal operator and stevedore"that engages in the business of "loading and unloading cargo from ships and other operational activities." Id. ¶ 16. STA "provides labor management relations, payroll processing, [and] work hours database management for those employed in the maritime trade industry." Id. ¶ 17.
In addition to plaintiff's duties as a longshoreman, he is a member of Local 333, the Port's affiliate of the ILA. Id. ¶ 11. The ILA is a labor union that represents longshoremen, clerks, checkers and maintenance employees working in ports on the east and gulf coasts of the United States. Id. ¶ 18. The relationship between STA and Local 333 members is governed by a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"). Id. ¶ 12.
Plaintiff claims "a pattern and practice of discrimination, against African American and Asiatic males, by the Defendants," id. ¶ 22, which "spans training, promotions, and the conditions of employment." Id. ¶ 23. According to plaintiff, the Port's history of discrimination stretches back to 1970, when United States District Judge Alexander Harvey II4 entered a Consent Decree ordering the implementation of a non-discriminatory seniority system, mandated the merger of Local 829 and 858 (Local 333's predecessors), and put into place various reporting requirements. See id. ¶¶ 25-27; see also United States v. Int'l Longshoremen's Assoc., 319 F. Supp. 737 (D. Md. 1970). Plaintiff asserts that, pursuant to the Consent Decree, Local 333 should have adopted a race-neutral seniority system, and "should have taken affirmative steps to require that the stevedoring companies in the Port" make employment decisions "on the basis of ability and seniority," as opposed to race. ECF 1, ¶ 28; see generally Int'l Longshoremen's Assoc., 319 F. Supp. 737.
However, plaintiff alleges that the promotion system implemented by Local 333 is not race neutral. Labor at the Port is supplied to stevedoring companies for the purpose of loading andunloading ships in accordance with what plaintiff calls a "'gang system.'" ECF 1, ¶ 30. Under this system, Local 333 assigns new members to a particular gang, where they begin to earn seniority. Id. ¶ 31. When a regular vacancy occurs in a gang, for example because of retirement or death, the "gang carrier notifies the labor coordinating process," id. ¶ 33, and then Local 333's "Seniority Board selects the new member based on seniority, qualifications, and the pool of eligible individuals from the Baltimore vicinity and surrounding areas." Id. ¶ 34. According to plaintiff, "the Seniority Board is non-compliant with the Consent Decree Order and thus further violates Title VII protected rights." Id. ¶ 38. Specifically, plaintiff alleges, id. ¶ 39:
The industry has failed to promote African American and Asiatics into employee leadership positions and opportunities. Subjective testing criteria, standards for imposing discipline, drug and alcohol policies, training programs, and clearance credential requirements have a disparate impact on African American and Asiatics or have been enforced in a racially discriminatory manner.
Further, plaintiff asserts that the Port's hiring practices "discriminate against African American and Asiatic employees in breach of the CBA." Id. ¶ 43. According to plaintiff, prior to 2006, the Port's hiring system complied with the CBA's seniority-based promotion system. Id. ¶ 40. Under the pre-2006 system, members of Local 333 "were hired for skilled positions with Employers based on a port-wide seniority system, which allowed employees to bid on permanent positions without regard for job classifications. . . ." Id. ¶ 41. In 2006, however, STA and Local 333 agreed to new hiring provisions that allocate positions to workers "based on seniority in each job category," id. ¶ 42, which plaintiff claims disadvantages Black employees. Id. ¶ 43.
Plaintiff asserts that he has "consistently been a vocal advocate against the discrimination and unfair treatment of African American and Asiatic longshoremen at the Port." Id. ¶ 58. To that end, he has filed complaints with Local 333, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), and "pursued other litigation in opposition to [defendants'] various employmentpractices[.]" Id. ¶ 57. As a result, the ILA allegedly "created a targeted scheme to silence Plaintiff and the vocal Union leadership by repeatedly removing Plaintiff from office and interfering with union leadership conducting official business." Id. ¶ 59.
Plaintiff has served in numerous leadership positions with Local 333. He was elected by the Local 333 membership as the "Walking Delegate" in 1985, the "Wage Scale Delegate" in 1986, the "Vice President of the Union and Convention Delegate" in 1987, a "member of the Executive Board" in 2006, and "President" in 2008. Id. ¶ 60. However, plaintiff claims that in 2010, the ILA "removed" plaintiff from his role as President by "utilizing court sealed documents against him to his detriment." Id. ¶ 62. The same year, despite plaintiff running again for President and receiving "an overwhelming majority of the votes," id., the ILA "refused to recognize Plaintiff's reelection, disqualified him from consideration, and installed his defeated opponent, a Caucasian male, as President." Id. ¶ 63.
That President was removed in late 2011, creating a vacancy for Vice President. Id. ¶ 64. Thereafter, plaintiff was elected to the Vice President position. Id. He served in that role until December 2012, when he was again elected President. Id. ¶ 65.
Plaintiff served as President of Local 333 until November 2014, when the ILA "put Local 333 under trusteeship," i.e., "under the control of itself, ILA." Id. ¶¶ 65, 66. According to plaintiff, the ILA justified the trusteeship as necessary to establish which members were in good standing and were therefore eligible to vote on contracts. Id. ¶ 67. In place of plaintiff, the ILA appointed Vice President Wilbert Rowell, a Caucasian male, to serve as the temporary trustee. Id.
During this time, "the trustee and selected employees" negotiated the terms of the CBA, in lieu of "the Union's democratically-elected" representatives. Id. ¶ 68. Plaintiff alleges that Scott Cowan was chosen to draft contract proposals and negotiate on behalf of Local 333. Id. ¶ 69.According to plaintiff, Mr. Cowan was the only Caucasian member of the incumbent Executive Board, and "he was the only non-suspended board member" asked to help with "crucial" negotiations. Id. Plaintiff also asserts that Mr. Cowan "outwardly opposed Plaintiff's leadership, and he expressed an intention to run against McKenzie in the upcoming election." Id.
On February 11, 2015, the ILA held a membership meeting to discuss its CBA proposal. Id. ¶ 70. The ILA allegedly "broke many of [its] own rules and practices." Id. For example, it held the meeting in the employer's terminal rather than the union hall, and it failed to mail copies of the contract proposal to members prior to the meeting. Id.
On February 13, 2015, the membership voted to reject the contract proposal on February 13, 2015. Id. ¶ 71. The following day, the ILA's "Trusteeship Hearing Committee issued a report recommending that the temporary trusteeship be continued, and Mr. Rowell was later appointed the permanent trustee." Id. ¶ 72. This course of conduct, plaintiff alleges, violated Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and is "contrary to the 1971 consent decree's adoption of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial