Pruitt v. Afscme Council 25, Afscme Local 2650, Al Garrett

• Decision Date: 16 December 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 14-12696
• Citation: Pruitt v. Afscme Council 25, Afscme Local 2650, Al Garrett, Case No. 14-12696 (E.D. Mich. Dec 16, 2014)
• Parties: PAULA PRUITT, Plaintiff, v. AFSCME COUNCIL 25, AFSCME LOCAL 2650, AL GARRETT, and SANDRA CRAYTON, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

PAULA PRUITT, Plaintiff, v. AFSCME COUNCIL 25, AFSCME LOCAL 2650, AL GARRETT, and SANDRA CRAYTON, Defendants.

Case No. 14-12696

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

December 16, 2014

HON. AVERN COHN

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT(Doc. 14) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND(Doc. 17) AND DISMISSING CASE¹

I. Introduction/Summary of Decision

This is a labor case arising out of an employment dispute.PlaintiffPaula Pruitt, proceeding pro se, is suing defendantsAFSCME Council 25 and its affiliated AFSCME Local 2650 (collectively, the Union), Al Garrett, President of AFSCME Council 25, and Sandra Crayton, President of AFSCME Local 2650.As will be explained, Pruitt was terminated from her position as a Nurse Assistant II at McLaren Regional Medical Center-Flint² for harassing and threatening another employee.The Union representedPruitt in arbitration; the arbitrator upheld her termination.In broad terms, Pruitt claims that the Union failed to provide her with fair representation during the arbitration process, resulting in a violation of her right to due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and causing her emotional distress.

Before the Court is the Union's motion for summary judgment and Pruitt's motion for leave to file an amended complaint.For the reasons that follow, the Union's motion will be granted and Pruitt's motion will be denied.The case will be dismissed.³

As will be explained, none of Pruitt's claims under federal law, whether as currently plead or as she proposes to amend, carry the day.Regarding her claims under federal law, the Union cannot be sued for discrimination under § 1983, the Union fairly and throughly represented Pruitt in arbitration, and there is no evidence the Union discriminated against her in the way it pursued her grievance.

Finally, Pruitt's claim under state law for intentional infliction of emotional distress will be dismissed without prejudice to her right to pursue it in the state courts.

II.Background

A.Factual

The material facts as gleaned from the parties' papers follow:⁴

Pruitt was an employee of McLaren Regional Medical Center (Hospital).TheHospital is privately owned with locations throughout mid-Michigan.Pruitt was employed as a Nurse Assistant II, a classification whose terms and conditions of employment are contained within the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Hospital and the Union and its affiliated Local 2650.Local 2650 is a bargaining unit which represents various classifications employed by the Hospital.Local 2650 is affiliated with the Union, which is a statewide labor organization employing professionals such as Staff Representatives, Staff Specialists, and Staff Attorneys, who assist local union officers in a variety of functions, including collective bargaining, grievance processing, as well as providing advocacy in various proceedings including arbitrations.

On March 12, 2013, Pruitt was issued a Step 1 verbal warning by her supervisor, Cathleen Hipps.The stated reason for discipline was Pruitt's alleged failure to answer call lights and failure to clean and change a patient's soiled linens during two previous shifts.During the subsequent arbitration, Hipps testified that Pruitt became very vocal and upset when issued the discipline.

On March 26, 2013, Pruitt met with Hipps to receive her performance evaluation.Plaintiff received a rating of 2.15 out of a possible 5 points, which rates as "partially meets expectations."Hipps further testified at arbitration that Pruitt became "enraged" and argued with her about the evaluation.

Approximately five days later, Hipps found two voice messages on her work phone.The first message had been left at 10:42 the previous evening, and simply stated: "You's [sic] a stupid bitch."

The second message was left at 11:26 the previous evening, and was about one minute long.Hipps went to the employer's Human Resources office and played themessage for Teea Moore, the Senior Human Resource Consultant.Moore later had the message transcribed.The message said:

I wanna [sic] give you something to think about.You're in a position of power and watching over people and also watching over employees and you take that to your advantage.I don't know how you sleep at night.God does not like ugly.I hope you listen to these words and know that the things you do to your patients and to your employees is despicable.You gon [sic] burn in hell for it!Have your patients and your employees having problems because of your evilness.And God is going to make you pay for it!I hope you let everybody hear this!You will be getting a lawsuit filed against you for the shit you do to people and the unfairness that you do to people and the stress you bring upon people's lives!You think about that when you think about different things and tragedies that's happened in your own life.Sit and think about that!You gon [sic] rot in hell!You's [sic] a bitch!

The Hospital employees immediately suspected Pruitt as the unidentified caller.Testimony during the arbitration hearing revealed that, after listening to the voicemail, Moore located Pruitt in the building and interviewed her, with a union representative present.During the interview, Pruitt denied leaving the messages, but did not provide any details about her whereabouts at the time the calls were made.Moore's interview notes indicate that Pruitt initially denied having a cell phone at all, but later stated she had a cell phone for emergencies.Pruitt was suspended at the end of the interview.

On April 5, 2013, Pruitt was terminated.The stated reason for termination was that Pruitt had left two inappropriate and threatening messages on her supervisor's office voicemail.The Hospital took the position that this conduct violated Human Resource Policies 405, 410 and 0130.HR Policy 405 addresses "Personal Appearance and Behavior" and the section addressing conduct includes a statement that the Employer maintains a "zero tolerance" policy for "intimidating and/or disruptivebehavior," including harassment, vulgarity, abuse, or any such behavior which. . . is unduly offensive to others," and including "insulting, demeaning, humiliating. . . a co-worker."HR Policy 410 is entitled "Corrective Action Program," and contains both major and minor infractions.The notice of termination cited a violation of item 16, under major infractions, which states: "Conduct of an indecent or seriously inappropriate nature which creates an adverse impact on MHCC/MRMC or any employee/group."HR Policy 0130 is entitled "Harassment and Discrimination."The policy prohibits unwelcome or offensive conduct or communication "based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, height, weight, marital status, disability, genetic information, veteran status, or any other protected status."

On April 10, 2013, the Union filed a grievance protesting Pruitt's termination.The grievance was denied at Step 2 on August 2, 2013.On August 13, 2013, the Union appealed to arbitration.On December 20, 2013, the advocate assigned to handle Pruitt's grievance, William Farmer, spoke on the phone with Pruitt and Crayton about her case and scheduled a preparatory meeting.On December 27, 2013, Farmer met with Pruitt and Crayton at the Local 2650 offices in Flint.During the meeting, which lasted approximately two hours, all aspects of Pruitt's grievance were discussed, including potential witnesses, the timeline and sequence of events, the materials which the Hospital was likely to present, and in particular, the cell phone issue.

Although Pruitt says otherwise, defendants say that neither the Union or any agent of the Union take Pruitt's cell phone without her permission.The Union says that Pruitt handed her cell phone to either Farmer or Crayton so they could figure out which carrier provided service.This was done in an attempt to produce call records whichwould show no calls were made from the phone as the Hospital alleged.In any event, the manner in which Pruitt's cell phone was procured is not material to her claims.

The arbitration hearing took place on February 6, 2014.Farmer represented Pruitt at the hearing.Hipps, Moore, and Lisa Rogers, the Director of Human Resources, testified on behalf of the Hospital.Pruitt was the only witness who testified on her behalf.After taking testimony and receiving evidence, the Arbitrator closed the hearing.The Union submitted a post-hearing brief in support of Pruitt's grievance.

On April 17, 2014, the Arbitrator issued an Opinion and Award.The Arbitrator framed the issue for decision as follows: "[d]id the Employer have just cause for terminating the employment of Paula Pruitt on April 5, 2013?If not, what is the remedy?"

The Arbitrator first made a factual determination that Pruitt had made the calls and left the messages to Hipps.The Arbitrator then turned to the question of whether the discharge was the appropriate penalty, in light of all the evidence.The Arbitrator considered the various HR Policies of which Pruitt was accused of violating, in light of the evidence as well as the arguments advanced by the Union and the Hospital.The Arbitrator accepted the Union's argument that, even if Pruitt left the messages, she had not violated HR Policy 0130, because there was no indication that any protected status was involved.However, the Arbitrator found that the messages were of a harassing nature, and particularly offensive, since they appeared to reference the recent death of Hipps' husband, and this conduct was prohibited under Policy 405.Further, the Arbitrator reasoned that the anonymous nature of the messages contributed to their threatening nature, and the severity of their inappropriateness constituted a majorviolation of Policy 410.Having found that Pruitt violated two of the three HR Policies alleged, the Arbitrator then reasoned that termination...