UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, ETC. v. Dalton

• Decision Date: 04 June 1982
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 81-51-NN.
• Citation: 544 F. Supp. 291
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
• Parties: UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. John N. DALTON, Governor, et. al., Defendants.

544 F. Supp. 291

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. John N. DALTON, Governor, et. al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 81-51-NN.

United States District Court, E. D. Virginia, Newport News Division.

June 4, 1982.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

C. T. Neale, III, Hudgins & Neale, Newport News, Va., Robert H. Stropp, Jr., Cooper, Mitch & Crawford, Birmingham, Ala., Bruce A. Miller, Roger J. McClow, Miller, Cohen, Martens & Sugerman, P. C., Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs.

Marshall Coleman, Atty. Gen. of Va., Gregory M. Luce, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., Robert V. Beale, City Atty., Newport News, Va., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

MacKENZIE, Chief Judge.

This is a related action to United Steelworkers of America v. Dalton, 293 F.Supp. 282 (Steelworkers I), also before this Court. The events complained of arose from a strike at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company in the winter and early spring of 1979. In Steelworkers I, the plaintiffs therein challenged the constitutionality of three Virginia statutes: §§ 40.1-53, 18.2-406 and 18.2-407 of the Virginia Code. They also challenged the actions of various city officials in response to the strike. Generally speaking, plaintiffs complained of unlawful arresting procedures and certain excesses in police conduct.

This complaint was originally proffered as an amendment to the pleadings in Steelworkers I. As proffered, the amendment would have added eighteen new plaintiffs and twelve new defendants. The claims of the eighteen plaintiffs all related to excesses in police conduct on the 16th of April. In the interest of keeping the litigation in Steelworkers I manageable, the proffered amendment was refused. Subsequently, that amendment became the basis for the complaint in this action.

Although there is not a complete identity of actors in this action and Steelworkers I, the actions are so closely related that the rulings of Steelworkers I will be largely dispositive in this action. Consequently, where the issues are the same, the Court will simply rely on the rulings of Steelworkers I. No good purpose would be served through a recantation of the rationales of Steelworkers I.

Initially, plaintiffs challenge the facial validity of the same three Virginia statutes challenged in Steelworkers I: §§ 40.1-53, 18.2-406 and 18.2-407 of the Virginia Code. For the reasons stated in Steelworkers I, those challenges are rejected.¹ George C. Austin, the City of Newport News Police Chief, and the City of Newport News have moved to dismiss this action on the same grounds they put forth in Steelworkers I. For the same reasons stated in Steelworkers I, their motions are DENIED.

Defendants Frank Smiley, City Manager of Newport News at the time of the strike, C. E. Hinman, Deputy Police Chief of Newport News, and Marvin B. Farmer, a lieutenant in the Virginia State Troopers, have also moved for dismissal from this action. Plaintiffs' complaint is brought under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The portion of § 1985 applicable here is subsection 3. It provides:

If two or more persons in any state or territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; ... the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).

These three defendants argue that plaintiffs' complaint states nothing actionable under this section.

In Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971), the Supreme Court limited the scope of § 1985(3) to those conspiracies founded on a racial or other class-based animus.

That the statute was meant to reach private action does not, however, mean that it was intended to apply to all tortious, conspiratorial interferences with the rights of others.... The constitutional shoals that would lie in the path of interpreting § 1985(3) as a general federal tort law can be avoided by giving full effect to the congressional purpose — by requiring as an element of the cause of action the kind of invidiously discriminatory motivation stressed by the sponsors of the limiting amendment of equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities, means that there must be some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirator's action. The conspiracy, in other words, must aim at a deprivation of the equal enjoyment of rights secured by the law to all.

403 U.S. at 101, 91 S.Ct. at 1798.

The questions that must be resolved, then, are whether plaintiffs are complaining of a class-based discrimination, and if so, whether the class is one cognizable under § 1985(3).

For class-based discrimination to occur, a class must first exist at whom the discrimination is aimed. The class is not to be defined from the actions of the conspirators; it must preexist the conspiracy and have an existence apart from the conspiracy. Without the existence of a class, there can be no class-based animus. Askew v. Bloemker, 548 F.2d 673 (7th Cir. 1976).

A class must be defined from the common characteristics shared by its members. Id. at 678. For the purposes of § 1985(3), the class must be "possessed of discrete, insular and immutable characteristics comparable to those characterizing classes such as race, national origin and sex." Bellamy v. Mason's Stores, Inc., 368 F.Supp. 1025, 1028 (E.D.Va.1973) aff'd, 508 F.2d 504 (4th Cir. 1974); Savina v. Gebhart, 497 F.Supp. 65 (D.Md.1980). Where a group's class status depends entirely upon the actions of which the group complains, the only characteristic the group's members can be said to share is the wrong of which they complain. More importantly, the class cannot have existed prior to the defendant's wrong, for it is the wrong that is claimed as the shared characteristic of the class. In such circumstances, no class exists within the meaning of § 1985(3), nor can the defendants' actions have been based on a class-based animus.

Several courts have considered whether union members constitute a class for the purposes of § 1985(3). These courts have held that union members are not a cognizable class. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 637 F.2d 743 (10th Cir. 1980); Taylor v. Brighton Corp., 616 F.2d 256 (6th Cir. 1980); Iowa Beef Processors, Inc. v. Gorman, 476 F.Supp. 1382 (N.D.Iowa 1979); Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union v. J. P. Stevens and Co., Inc., 475 F.Supp. 482 (S.D.N.Y.1979).

Applying the criteria set forth in Bellamy v. Mason Stores, Inc., supra, this Court agrees that union members, and here the United Steelworkers of America, do not constitute a class within the meaning of § 1985(3). The union members, as a group, are not "possessed of discrete, insular and immutable characteristics comparable to those characterizing such classes as race, national origin and sex. Id. at 1028.

Because plaintiffs, as union members, do not constitute a cognizable class, the Court must consider what other characteristic sufficient to confer class status upon them plaintiffs share. The only characteristic plaintiffs share is their status as victims of the conspiracy alleged in the complaint. Because the defendants' actions cannot define a class, no class within the meaning of § 1985(3) exists. As no class exists within the meaning of § 1985(3), plaintiffs' claims under § 1985(3) against defendants Smiley, Hinman, and Farmer are DISMISSED. Insofar as plaintiffs' claims against any of the defendants are based upon § 1985(3), they are DISMISSED sua sponte. Because of our resolution of this issue, there is no need for the Court to consider defendants' other defenses to plaintiffs' § 1985(3) claims.

Defendants Smiley and Hinman also have moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The allegations against defendant Smiley are that he conspired with other of the defendants "to deprive plaintiffs of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and federal labor laws.... and participated in one or more meetings for the purpose of planning strike arrest procedures and evidence handling, relating to strike arrests, directed against the plaintiffs and to be selectively applied against the plaintiffs." Plaintiffs' Complaint ¶ 30. Plaintiffs also allege that Smiley took part in the planning of special bonding procedures. These procedures, plaintiffs aver, had a "chilling" effect on the exercise of their rights. Finally, plaintiffs allege that Smiley directed and was responsible for the various police excesses during the strike, particularly those that occurred on April 16, 1979.

Defendant Smiley argues that these assertions are vague and seek to hold him liable under a respondeat superior theory. In § 1983 actions, the doctrine of respondeat superior is not a proper basis of liability. Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926 (4th Cir. 1977). Whether greater particularity would be desirable in plaintiffs' complaint, at this point the complaint is sufficient to state a § 1983 claim against defendant Smiley. Essentially, plaintiffs' claim is that defendant Smiley took part in the planning, and directed the use, of the Newport News police as a tool for harassment of the strikers. As strikers, plaintiffs were harassed. These allegations sufficiently state a claim that defendant Smiley knowingly acted to deprive plaintiffs a right guaranteed under federal law — the right to participate in union activities. With regard to the events of April 16, 1979, if the police actions were undertaken as a part of the harassment plan, defendant Smiley could be responsible for them. Development of the evidence will be necessary before the link, if any, between Smiley and the events of the...