United Steel Workers Local 12-369 v. United Steel Workers Int'l
| Decision Date | 06 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 10–35450.,10–35450. |
| Citation | 728 F.3d 1107 |
| Parties | UNITED STEEL WORKERS LOCAL 12–369; David Roberts, Plaintiffs, and Stephanie B. Green, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. UNITED STEEL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL; United Steel Paper and Forestry Rubber Manufacturing Energy Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union; AFL–CIOCLC; Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council; AFL–CIO; Dave Molnaa, husband and the marital community thereof; Vince Stroops, husband and the marital community thereof; Jane Doe Stroops, wife and the marital community thereof; Kirk Domina, husband and the marital community thereof; JANE Doe Domina, wife and the marital community thereof; Victor Cruz, husband and the marital community thereof; Jane Doe Cruz, wife and the marital community thereof; Jim Woodward, husband and the marital community thereof; Jane Doe Woodward, wife and the marital community thereof; Cherrie Miller, wife and the marital community thereof; John Doe Miller, husband and the marital community thereof; Margie Meyers, wife and the marital community thereof; John Doe Meyers, husband and the marital community thereof; Jim Orosco, husband and marital community thereof; Jane Doe Orosco, wife and the marital community thereof; Karen Alexander, wife and the marital community thereof; John Doe Alexander, husband and the marital community thereof; Randy Knowles, husband and the marital community thereof; Jane Doe Knowles, wife and the marital community thereof; Jane Doe Molnaa, wife and the marital community thereof, Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Natalie R. Ram (argued) and Deanne E. Maynard, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff–Appellant.*
Danielle E. Leonard (argued), Peter D. Nussbaum, Matthew J. Murray, Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, CA; Jay Smith and Joshua F. Young, Gilbert & Sackman, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants–Appellees United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFLCIO, CLC.
Daniel Hutzenbiler (argued) and Richard H. Robblee, Robblee Detwiler & Black PLLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendants–Appellees Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council, David and Jill Molnaa.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Robert H. Whaley, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07–cv–05053–RHW.
Before: DOROTHY W. NELSON, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Stephanie Green, formerly President of the United Steel Workers Local 12–369 (the “Local”), brings the instant action against the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC (the “International”), the Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council (“HAMTC”), and David Molnaa (collectively, “Defendants”). Green pursues claims for discrimination on the basis of race and gender and retaliation for having engaged in protected speech under the Labor–Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. The district court dismissed Green's claims under LMRDA § 609, but permitted the remainder of her claims to proceed to trial. Following a ten-day bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of Defendants, finding that they had not unlawfully discriminated or retaliated against Green.
On appeal, we hold that LMRDA § 609 does not protect union officers from discipline suffered in their official capacities, and therefore the district court properly dismissed Green's claims under this provision. We further affirm the district court's judgment entered after trial.
As underscored by the length of the trial below, the factual history of this case is extensive to say the least. We focus on the actors, events, and controversies most relevant to Green's claims.
Green is a nuclear chemical operator (“NCO”) at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Richland, Washington. In November 2005, Green was elected President of the Local, making her the first female and first African–American President in the Local's history. Green was reelected in May 2009, and she continued to serve as President at the time of trial.
The Local is an amalgamated local that is headquartered in Richland and maintains branches in the states of Washington, Hawaii, and Oregon. As of 2007, over half of the Local's 1400 members were, like Green, employed at the Hanford Reservation.
A unique representation arrangement exists for members employed at Hanford. The Local and fourteen other unions with members at Hanford comprise HAMTC. HAMTC, and not the constituent unions, acts as the collective bargaining agent for Hanford union employees. Defendant Molnaa has served as President of HAMTC since 2005.
The International is the parent organization of the Local. It assumed this status in April 2005 after merging with the Local's previous parent, the Paper Allied–Industrial Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (“PACE”). During the period relevant to this suit, Vincent Stroops was a staff representative for the International, serving in this capacity as a liaison between the International and the Local. Jim Woodward was a Subdistrict Director for the International, covering the district to which the Local belongs. Woodward reported to Terry Bonds, who served as District Director for the International. Leo Gerard is President of the International.
Green was embroiled in disputes within the Local well before being elected President. In 2002, Green and other NCOs formed a group that attempted to decertify the Local as their representative. According to the district court, the NCOs contended that the Local was not adequately serving their interests relative to the other bargaining units within the Local.
Stroops, then acting as a staff representative for PACE, filed formal charges against Green and the other NCOs for violating the PACE Constitution. The charges against Green were dismissed because she was not provided proper notice, but other members of the group were found guilty and suspended from the Local for various periods of time.
In January 2005, Green won an election to serve as “steward” for a subset of NCOs at the Hanford Reservation. Following the election, a dispute arose as to the scope of this position. The notice for the election had listed the relevant position as covering the “K–Basin,” which includes three separate buildings—“K-East,” “K–West,” and “CVD.” Green's predecessor as steward, Kirk Domina, had been recognized as steward for the entire K–Basin. However, after Green won the election, Karen Alexander, one of the Local's staff representatives and a member of its Executive Board, informed Green that her position covered only the K–West building and that there was no steward position for the entire K–Basin. Randy Knowles, then-President of the Local, later reiterated this position.
In May 2005, the Local agreed to recognize Green as the point of contact for the entire K–Basin. Nevertheless, in July 2005, Green filed internal charges with the Local's Executive Board, alleging that the events surrounding the steward election reflected discrimination attributable to her race and gender. Green filed a similar complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in October 2005. On May 24, 2007, the EEOC issued a determination that there was cause to believe that Green's allegations were meritorious.
Green was elected President of the Local in November 2005. When the election results were received, Karen Alexander apparently commented: When the Local's leadership ordered that the election be rerun, Green appealed the decision to the International. In April 2006, the International overturned the decision and ordered that Green be seated as President.
On May 4, 2006, Green presided over her first Executive Board meeting as President. Tensions rose when Green announced that, contrary to prior practice, certain decisions by the Executive Board would be subject to ratification by union members at the Local's monthly membership meetings. Because these membership meetings were held in Richland, NCOs at the Hanford Reservation comprised a disproportionate percentage of those able to attend, while members from outlying branches such as the Spokane branch were inevitably underrepresented. Indeed, in response to Green's announcement, an Executive Board member from the Spokane branch warned Green that the new policy would lead to the Local losing its Spokane units. Green's response to this warning was simply, “OK.”
As was likely the intended effect, after the new policy was implemented, decisions of the Executive Board were regularly overturned at the monthly membership meetings in Richland.
The warning Green received at the Executive Board meeting proved to be correct: two units of the Spokane branch—pharmacists and technicians—ultimately decided to decertify from the Local. Green contends, however, that she was unduly marginalized in this process.
In July 2006, the International arranged a meeting with the Spokane pharmacists to discuss the unit's desire to decertify. Green traveled to Spokane to participate in the discussions, but upon her arrival, an official with the International informed her that she would not be allowed to attend the meeting. The pharmacists eventually decertified from both the Local and the International. In June 2007, the technicians at the Spokane branch decertified from the Local, but were permitted to form a new local within the International. Again, Green was not included in the discussions concerning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Local 556, Transp. Workers Union of Am.
...secured under the LMRDA, whereas § [412] only protects rights secured under [§§ 411-15]." United Steel Workers Local12-369 v. United Steel Workers Int'l, 728 F.3d 1107, 1115 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Finnegan, 456 U.S. at 439 n.10). Depending on the right the member seeks to protect, §§ 412 a......
-
Pimentel v. Aloise
...governed and responsive to the will of their memberships") (emphasis added) (emphasis added); United Steel Workers Local 12-369 v. United Steel Workers Int'l, 728 F.3d 1107, 1115 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing a "congressional concern with widespread abuses of power by union leadership") (emph......
-
Kennedy v. UMC Univ. Med. Ctr.
...1981 is analyzed under the same principles that apply to a title VII claim. See United Steel Workers Local 12–369 v. United Steel Workers Int'l , 728 F.3d 1107, 1118 (9th Cir.2013) ; see also Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA , 339 F.3d 792, 797 (9th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the Court will treat Plai......
-
Martin v. Local 556, Transp. Workers Union of Am.
...secured under the LMRDA, whereas § [412] only protects rights secured under [§§ 411-15]." United Steel Workers Local 12-369 v. United Steel Workers Int'l, 728 F.3d 1107, 1115 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S.431, 439 n.10 (1982)). Depending on the right the member seeks to p......