Stewart v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Union AFL-CIO et al

Filing 43

ORDER. The Court grants its motion to dismiss 33 and gives plaintiff fourteen days from the date of this order to amend his claims against IATSE. [For further details see order.] Signed by the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 6/30/2015. Notice mailed by judge's staff (ntf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
BENNY L. STEWART,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF
THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES
UNION AFL-CIO, THEATRICAL
STAGE EMPLOYEES LOCAL 2,
DANIEL KELLY KERINS, CRAIG
CARLSON, THOMAS CLEARY,
THOMAS HERMANN, THOMAS
KINSELLA, RICHARD CONRAD,
JEFFERY SCHNOEBELEN, and
WILLIAM RILEY, JR.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 14 C 7472
Judge Jorge L. Alonso

ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sues defendants for their alleged violations of Title VII, the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Labor Management Relations and Disclosure Act.
Defendant International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians,
Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada, AFL-CIO, CLC
(“IATSE”)1 asks the Court to dismiss the claims asserted against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
12(b)(6).
Plaintiff alleges that he is a member of defendant Theatrical Stage Employees Union Local
2 (“Local 2”), which is an affiliate of IATSE. (Compl. ¶¶ 2-4.) The individual defendants are
officers or Executive Board members of Local 2. (Id. ¶¶ 5-12.)

1

Plaintiff sues this defendant as International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees
Union, AFL-CIO.

In June 2009, plaintiff “began inquiring into reasons for [disparate] work assignments,
training, earnings and denied medical benefits . . . , and seniority status.” (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff
criticized Local 2’s practice of providing full membership to white employees in three years but
requiring African-American employees to wait more than ten years to attain that status. (Id. ¶ 14.)
Plaintiff also filed charges of discrimination and retaliation with the Illinois Department of Human
Rights and an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board. (Id. ¶ 15.) As
a result of his complaints, plaintiff alleges, Local 2 retaliated against him by giving him fewer and
less desirable job assignments, subjecting him to unfounded discipline, expelling him from the
union, and denying him benefits to which he is entitled. (Id. ¶¶ 16-29.)
What plaintiff does not allege, however, is that IATSE discriminated or retaliated against
him, or that it “‘instigated, supported, ratified or encouraged’” Local 2’s allegedly wrongful conduct.
Carbon Fuel Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 444 U.S. 212, 218 (1979). Absent such
allegations, plaintiff has not stated a viable claim against IATSE. See id.; N.L.R.B. v. Eldorado Mfg.
Corp., 660 F.2d 1207, 1212 (7th Cir. 1981) (“[T]o establish a union’s liability under the doctrine
of respondeat superior, evidence must be offered that the ‘International Union instigated, supported,
ratified, or encouraged’ the activity in question.”) (quoting Carbon Fuel, 444 U.S. at 218). Thus,
the Court grants its motion to dismiss [33] and gives plaintiff fourteen days from the date of this
Order to amend his claims against IATSE.
SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 30, 2015

__________________________________
HON. JORGE L. ALONSO
United States District Judge

2