Phillips v. UAW Int'l

• Decision Date: 26 February 2016
• Docket Number: Case Number 15-10525
• Citation: 149 F.Supp.3d 790
• Parties: Tanganeka L. Phillips, Plaintiff, v. UAW International, Brian Johnson, an individual, Dave Kegals, an individual, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

149 F.Supp.3d 790

Tanganeka L. Phillips, Plaintiff,

v.UAW International, Brian Johnson, an individual, Dave Kegals, an individual, Defendants.

Case Number 15-10525

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed February 26, 2016

Scott P. Batey, Batey Law Firm, PLLC, Bingham Farms, MI, for Plaintiff.

Ava R. Barbour, International Union, Uaw, Detroit, MI, Patrick J. Rorai, McKnight, Canzano, Smith, Radtke & Brault, P.C., Royal Oak, MI, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DAVID M. LAWSON, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Tanganeka “Tina” Phillips, while employed as a casino worker by MGM Grand Detroit Casino (“MGM”), became involved in union activity with her local affiliate of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (“UAW”), which represented casino workers at MGM. She performed paid work for the local, Local 7777 (while employed by MGM), but was never formally employed by the International Union. Nonetheless, she has brought claims in the present case against the UAW and two of its officials for race discrimination based on a hostile work environment theory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the corresponding Michigan statute. The defendants have moved for summary judgment, arguing that a union cannot be held liable for a hostile-work-environment claim as a matter of law; the International Union was not the plaintiff's employer, so her claim under Title VII must fail; and even if the plaintiff could bring such a claim, the conduct of the defendants was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. The defendants also argue that the claims against the individual defendants, Brian Johnson and David Kagels, cannot survive because Title VII does not authorize a claim against the employer's agents. The Court heard the parties' arguments in open court on February 22, 2016.

The defendants' arguments that no hostile environment claims could be brought against a labor union, or that the facts presented would not support such a claim, miss the mark. The pivotal question here is whether the plaintiff has offered facts to show that she can be considered an employee of the International Union under the applicable common law master-servant tests and within the meaning of Title VII. The Court concludes that she has come up short on that showing, and therefore the Court will grant the defendants' motion and dismiss the case.

I. Facts

A. Background

Phillips, an African-American woman, was employed by MGM as a cage cashier and later as an intermediate banker. She worked for MGM from June 28, 1999 until she resigned her employment on September 11, 2015, as a result of a settlement agreement with MGM in this case. In 2002 she became chairperson of a bargaining unit represented by Local 7777, an affiliate of defendant UAW. Defendant UAW organized the MGM casino employees in 2000, forming Local 7777 in 2001. Local 7777 represents approximately 900 MGM bargaining unit employees working at table games, slot machines, cash registers, and VIP rooms. Defendants David Kagels and Brian Johnson are servicing representatives of the UAW who were assigned to provide service and assistance to various local unions, including Local 7777.

The UAW and Local 7777 are members of the Detroit Casino Council (“DCC”), a consortium of four unions representing different sectors of the workforce at the three casinos in Detroit. The DCC, in turn, is a party to a series of collective bargaining agreements with each of the Detroit casinos. As an MGM employee, Phillips was covered by the CBA between the DCC and MGM.

Phillips became a member of Local 7777 in 2001. She was elected as the bargaining member at large in 2002, and six months later she was appointed, and later elected, as the Local 7777 casino chairperson. Phillips remained the elected casino chairperson until she resigned from MGM in September 2015. The casino chairperson handles employee grievances, resolves disputes between members and MGM, ensures that MGM complies with the CBA, and participates in negotiations.

B. Relationship Between Local and International Unions

The UAW, as well as all local unions affiliated with the UAW, are governed by the UAW Constitution. The UAW Constitution describes the relationship between the UAW and local unions, identifying the latter as autonomous entities that are separate from the International Union. Local unions have their own elected officers, authority, and responsibilities.

In addition to an executive board, the UAW is also staffed by international representatives, referred to within the UAW as “servicing representatives.” Servicing representatives are assigned to work with local unions, providing assistance or “service” to them as needed or requested by the local unions. Under the UAW Constitution, servicing representatives do not oversee the affairs of local unions, nor do they review the activities of local union officials. The servicing representatives have no authority to direct a local union on matters of staffing, hours, or pay for local union officers or representatives. Nor do they have the authority to supervise local union officers or representatives in the conduct of their duties, or to appoint or remove them from office.

Defendant Brian Johnson has been a servicing representative since February of 2000. In May 2012, he was assigned to represent employees in the gaming industry in Detroit. In 2010, defendant David Kagels was an administrative assistant to UAW Vice President Joe Ashton, and in 2014 he was appointed as the Director of the Gaming Department. One of his responsibilities in that position was to negotiate CBAs on behalf of the UAW with casinos throughout the country, including the Detroit casinos. In 2011, the DCC began negotiations with MGM for a new CBA. Kagels was the lead negotiator on behalf of the UAW. In 2012, Kagels also served as the UAW's lead negotiator during the MGM VIP department's negotiations with MGM over terms and conditions covering VIP service employees.

Unless a local union has been placed under an administratorship, which is a rare event, the International Union does not control or supervise the affairs of local unions. An administratorship is permitted “where necessary to: (a) prevent or correct corruption or financial malpractice; (b) assure the performance of collective bargaining agreements or other duties as a bargaining representative; (c) restore democratic procedures within any chartered subordinate body; or, (d) otherwise assure carrying out the legitimate objective of this International Union by such subordinate body.” UAW Const. art. 12, § 3. On September 24, 2015, about two weeks after Philips resigned from MGM, the UAW Executive Board held a hearing to consider placing Local 7777 under an administratorship for failure to comply with an executive board decision regarding Local 7777's 2013 triennial election. Subsequently, Local 7777 was placed under an administratorship.

The hierarchy of Local 7777 is not clear from the record, but it appears to consist of the following individuals during the relevant time: President Venus Jeter; Vice President Shimeca McClendon-Jackson; MGM Casino Chairperson Phillips; MGM Bargaining Member at Large Dewight (Dwight) Braxton; and a number of MGM shop stewards. When union members perform union business, Local 7777 paid “lost time” to its officers and representatives to reimburse them for pay they would have received from their casino employer had they not been performing union business. Additionally, union members could be engaged to work as temporary organizers by the UAW, as the plaintiff was between 2006 and 2013. It appears that when union members are organizing on behalf of the UAW, they receive compensation from their local unions, rather than from the UAW directly.

C. The Plaintiff's Relationship with the Local and International Unions

The plaintiff's most frequent duty as casino chairperson was to handle grievances. Under the CBA, the grievance procedure involved a four-step process. Step one was handled by a shop steward, step two by the bargaining member at large, and step three by the casino chairperson. Local 7777 had a further practice of referring all unresolved grievances to a UAW servicing representative, such as Brian Johnson, for a “step 3.5” meeting. The servicing representative may then decide whether to settle the grievance, withdraw it, or advance it to the final step, which was binding arbitration.

The plaintiff alleges that Johnson met with Local 7777 president Jeter, insisting that her hours, as well as others, needed to be reduced. Before that meeting, the plaintiff spent two days each week working on grievances for Local 7777, but as needed would work more. The plaintiff was paid hourly for this work by Local 7777. After Johnson's meeting with the Local 7777 president, the plaintiff was restricted to two days each week to complete union business. If more work was required, it was done on her own time, and for no pay. Before those changes, the plaintiff routinely was allowed to work more days as necessary without issue. The plaintiff concedes that she has since learned that the president of Local 7777 had the authority to reduce hours, but at the time, the UAW had the plaintiff believing it was the decision of its own representatives.

According to Ms. Jeter, elected officials, like the chairperson, take orders from the UAW with respect to how to do their job, when to do their job, and what job to do. She averred that the UAW has the final say and authority on which grievances to take and how to process them. If the UAW representative did not like the work an elected member did reviewing a grievance, the servicing representative had the authority to make elected officials do it again. According to Jeter, the UAW, despite being a separate legal entity, had the right to control every aspect of how the...