Nosie v. Ass'n Of Flight Attendants-cwa

• Citation: 722 F.Supp.2d 1181
• Decision Date: 28 June 2010
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 10-00062 ACK-LEK.
• Parties: Patricia Elizabeth NOSIE, Plaintiff, v. ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS-CWA, AFL-CIO, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

722 F.Supp.2d 1181

Patricia Elizabeth NOSIE, Plaintiff,

v.ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS-CWA, AFL-CIO, Defendant.

Civ. No. 10-00062 ACK-LEK.

United States District Court,D. Hawai‘i.

June 28, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

Patricia Elizabeth Nosie, Lihue, HI, pro se.

Deirdre Hamilton, Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC, Rebecca L. Covert, Takahashi Vasconcellos & Covert, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant.

ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REMAND, AND (2) GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

ALAN C. KAY, Senior District Judge.

BACKGROUND ¹

On January 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Lawsuit for Answers about, and Relief from, Such Treatment by Defendant that Resulted in Undue Suffering upon Plaintiff” in state court (“Complaint”). Plaintiff identified the “Defendant” as “Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO, Namely: Mark C. Stotik.” The Complaint explains that Mark C. Stotik (“Defendant Stotik”) is a staff attorney for the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO (“AFA”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

Although Plaintiff's Complaint is only four pages in length, she alleges the following. Plaintiff was a flight attendant employed by go! Airlines (“go!”), owned by Mesa Airlines, Inc. (“Mesa”). Compl. ¶ 1. Some time prior to October 31, 2007, Mesa terminated Plaintiff's employment. Id. As a result of Plaintiff's termination, AFA filed a grievance challenging her termination on or around October 31, 2007, and represented Plaintiff during a grievance process through June 11, 2008. Id.

Plaintiff's grievance was heard by the Mesa-AFA System Board of Adjustment (“System Board”) pursuant to Section 15 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Mesa and AFA (“CBA”) on April 29, 2008. Compl. ¶ 2, Question 2 (“Q.2”), Ex. C. After hearing, the members of the System Board were deadlocked and unable to resolve Plaintiff's grievance. Id. The next step would have been arbitration. Id.

On June 11, 2008, Defendant Stotik sent Plaintiff a letter in which he informed her that AFA had decided not to take her case to arbitration, explaining that AFA did not believe it would prevail in arbitration. Id. Defendant Stotik further informed Plaintiff that the grievance had not been withdrawn and that she could proceed to arbitration at her own expense. Id. Plaintiff asserts that this decision by AFA violates Section 15.I of the CBA. Id., Ex. B.

Plaintiff also complains of two character-damaging letters written against her by two Mesa pilots that were entered into her personnel file. Compl. ¶ 2, Question 1 (“Q.1”). Plaintiff explains that she was only made aware of the letters on an unidentified date when an unemployment representative from the Kauai unemployment office informed her that she had received the letters with Mesa's submission regarding the reasons for Plaintiff's termination. Id., Ex. A. Plaintiff alleges that the letters were placed in her file in violation of Section 26.C of the CBA and asserts that AFA should have addressed and sought resolution of this violation during the grievance process. Id., Ex. B.

As a result of these actions, Plaintiff poses two questions that she wishes to be answered. Question one asks:

Why did Defendant not address the issue, and seek resolution, of the two character-damaging letters ... written against me by two go! pilots entered into my Personnel file, an Act which ... violates Section 26 General-C of the AFA Agreement[ ]?

Id. ¶ 2, Q. 1. Question two asks:

What exactly about my Grievance caused the decision to be made that “... the Union will not be taking your case to arbitration. Based on the evidence in the case, we did not believe that we would prevail at arbitration,” an Act, to my understanding, violates Section 15 [of the CBA].

Id. ¶ 2, Q.2.

Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Complaint does not pose any additional questions, but instead appears to put her questions in context. Plaintiff declines to “speculate as to the reasons for Defendant's actions”. Compl. ¶ 3, p. 3. However, she states that she has to:

face the reality that as much as [she] believe[s] there should not be a need to play any race, gender, color or age ‘cards' because cruelty is cruelty and metes out harm no matter what ‘cards' are involved ... [she] hold[s] all of the aforementioned in [her] Hand of Life being an African American Woman with Dark Brown Skin and was 50 years of age when [she] received Defendant's non-arbitration notification.

Id. Plaintiff seeks to “investigate if any or all of those factors had anything to do with how [she] was treated....” Id. Plaintiff's Complaint was accompanied by a “Dismissal and Notice of Rights” (commonly referred to as a right-to-sue letter) from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Id., Ex. D.

Plaintiff's Complaint is not limited to discriminatory confines, however, as she states that a reason

to not limit this Lawsuit to discriminatory confines is the fact that the Answers [she] receive[s] might reveal other factors for Defendant's Actions not specifically covered under the Civil Rights Laws, but which might fall under Laws against violations of U.S. Citizens' Human Rights, as in the instance if certain acts are found to encompass some form of hate-based intent leading to demeaning and harmful acts.

Id.

Finally, Plaintiff states that she is “grateful” for Article I, Section 4 of the Hawai'i Constitution, often referred to as “first amendment rights,” which allows her to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Id. ² She is also “comforted” by the motto of Hawai'i, which is found in Article XV, Section 5 of the Hawai'i Constitution: “Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono” (as translated, “The Life of the Land is Perpetuated in Righteousness”). Id. Plaintiff believes that the relief she seeks “will be defined ... as Revelation of Defendant's Answers become available....” Id.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 3, 2010, with Defendant Stotik's consent, AFA removed this action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. See Defendants' Notice of Removal, docket no. 1. In the Notice of Removal, AFA noted that it was unclear whether Plaintiff intended to name AFA, Stotik, or both as the defendant(s), and stated that, for purposes of removal, AFA is proceeding as if both are defendants. Id. at 2 n. 1. AFA also noted that counsel for AFA represents Stotik as well because he performed the acts that Plaintiff complains of in his capacity as an AFA employee and agent. Id.

The Notice of Removal explains:

This lawsuit concerns Defendant's representation of Plaintiff, or alleged lack thereof, in connection with her termination from Mesa. Although Plaintiff does not clearly identify her causes of action, it is clear on the face of the Complaint that this lawsuit involves a federal question. Specifically, Plaintiff's claim arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 43 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”) and the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (“ADEA”). Plaintiff identifies herself as an African American woman who was 50 years old at the time of the events of which she complains. She also cites “the Civil Rights laws” and attaches a “Dismissal and Notice of Rights” from the EEOC. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim clearly alleges violations of Title VII and the ADEA.

Plaintiff's claim also arises under the law of the duty of fair representation.

An action by a union member complaining of her union's representation of her, or lack thereof, in connection with a grievance or discipline that member has received, as Plaintiff has done here, is known as a claim for a violation of the duty of fair representation....

Id. at 3-4.

On February 11, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for a more definite statement on the grounds that (1) it was unclear whether AFA, Stotik, or both are defendant(s) in this case, (2) Plaintiff did not include a short and plain statement of her claim, and (3) Plaintiff did not identify her causes of action (“Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement”). Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement was denied by Magistrate Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi on March 18, 2010. See Order Denying Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement (“Judge Kobayashi's 3/18/10 Order”). She reasoned that, given Defendants' description of Plaintiff's claim in the Notice of Removal, “AFA is able to reasonably respond to Plaintiff's Complaint.” Judge Kobayashi's 3/18/10 Order at 4.

On April 1, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (“Motion to Dismiss”), which was accompanied by a memorandum in support (“Motion to Dismiss Mem.”). The Motion to Dismiss indicates that it is still unclear whether Plaintiff intended to name AFA, Stotik, or both as the defendant(s). Motion to Dismiss Mem. at 1.

On June 3, 2010, Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a “Plea to Court to Not Allow Removal of My Case,” which the Court interprets as a motion for remand (“Motion for Remand”). See Dockets nos. 20, 21. ³ Plaintiff's Motion for Remand was accompanied by a letter addressed to the Court dated June 2, 2010 (“Plaintiff's 6/2/10 Letter”). In her Motion for Remand, Plaintiff asserts that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction because she is not alleging discrimination or a breach of the duty of fair representation. Motion for Remand at 2, 4. ⁴ Instead, Plaintiff asserts that she is simply asking for “answers” as to why Defendant Stotik handled her grievance in the manner that he did. Id.

On June 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (“Pl's Opp'n”). ⁵ In her opposition, Plaintiff again asserts that, despite the fact that she identified herself as fifty year old African American female and referred to U.S. Civil Rights laws in her...