Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad
Filing
41
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 35 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint filed by Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad. The motion is granted with respect to the Unions request for economic and punitive damages, but denied with respect to its request for injunctive relief. The Union need not file an amended complaint reflecting this ruling. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 5/6/14. (kjp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE
OF WAY EMPLOYEES DIVISION OF
THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
INDIANA HARBOR BELT
RAILROAD COMPANY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:13 CV 18-PPS-APR
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters accuses Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company of racial
discrimination and harassment in the work place. The Union seeks both monetary and injunctive
relief. Indiana Harbor Belt moves to dismiss all claims claiming that the Union does not have
standing to pursue these claims on behalf of its members. For the reasons below, I now GRANT
IN PART and DENY IN PART Indiana Harbor Belt’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint [DE 35]. I GRANT the motion with respect to the Union’s request for
economic and punitive damages, but DENY the motion with respect to its request for injunctive
relief.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
As usual, I’ll start with the grim facts as alleged in the complaint, which I accept as true
at this point in the case. The plaintiff union is a railway labor organization who works on behalf
of its members in the areas of “grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, hours of employment or
conditions of work, and [] negotiating collective bargaining agreements.” [DE 34 at ¶ 2.]
Indiana Harbor Belt is a railroad company based in Hammond, Indiana, that employees the
Union’s members. [Id. at ¶ 2, 6.]
The Union claims that Indiana Harbor Belt has subjected its African-American
employees to “a hostile work environment of such intensity as to result in their constructive
discharge.” [Id. at ¶ 13.] According to the complaint, Indiana Harbor Belt has engaged in the
following practices: preventing its African American employees from training for higher-rated
(and higher-paying) positions, instead giving those opportunities to its non-African-American
employees [id. at ¶ 14]; applying a disparate disciplinary policy against African-American
employees [id. at ¶ 20]; treating African-American employees more harshly than white
employees, resulting in the “systematic elimination of African-American new hires” and causing
the makeup of Indiana Harbor Belt’s workforce to be disproportionate to the racial composition
of the relevant labor market [id. at ¶ 21]; failing to recall African-American employees after
workforce reductions [id. at ¶ 25]; and allowing white employees to arrive late to work while
not allowing African-American employees to do the same [id. at ¶ 26]. And although Indiana
Harbor Belt has an anti-discrimination policy in place, the Union alleges that Indiana Harbor
Belt has failed to advise its employees of this policy and to correct discriminatory actions. [Id.
at ¶ 15.]
The Union further alleges that Indiana Harbor Belt’s agents and supervisors have
engaged in the following disturbing behavior including systematically referring to AfricanAmerican employees as “N_ _ _ _ _” [id. at ¶ 17]; displaying a Swastika tattoo [id. at ¶ 18];
referring to mixed-race children of African-American employees as “half-breeds” [id. at ¶ 19];
2
referring to white employees who associate with African Americans as “N_ _ _ _ _ lovers” [id.
at ¶ 28]; asking white employees who drink “particular-flavored soft drinks” why they drink
“N_ _ _ _ _ juice” [id.]; and displaying a noose in a company vehicle [id. at ¶ 29].
The Union initially filed its Section 1981 and Title VII lawsuit against Indiana Harbor
Belt in January 2013, seeking class action certification [DE 1]. Indiana Harbor Belt filed a
Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiff’s Class Allegations [DE 15], and in response, the
Union sought to consolidate the matter with other two other cases pending in this district [DE 21;
DE 22]. Both of those cases were brought by individual employees against Indiana Harbor Belt
and they make similar allegations to those made in the present case. The motion to consolidate
was ruled on by Judge Van Bokkelen who denied the request [DE 25]. I then denied the pending
motion to dismiss the class allegations in this case as moot and permitted Indiana Harbor Belt to
re-file its motion [DE 29].
Indiana Harbor Belt did so [DE 30], and in lieu of responding to the motion, the Union
requested leave to file an amended complaint removing the Rule 23 class allegations [DE 32]. I
granted this request, granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiff’s Class
Allegations, and ordered the Clerk to enter the proposed First Amended Complaint attached to
the Union’s request. [DE 33] Indiana Harbor Belt has now moved to dismiss the first amended
complaint on the grounds that the Union lacks standing to pursue its amended claims. [DE 35]
DISCUSISON
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
3
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). At this
stage I must accept all allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the complainant’s
favor, but I don’t need to accept threadbare legal conclusions supported by mere conclusory
statements. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. So under Iqbal, I must first identify allegations in the
complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth by, for example, disregarding legal
conclusions. Id. Then I must look at the remaining allegations to determine whether they
plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief. Id. Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief requires me to draw on my judicial experience and common sense. Id.
at 679.
Indiana Harbor Belt asks me to dismiss complaint for one main reason: the Union can’t
pursue this action on behalf of its members because it lacks associational standing. In essence,
Indiana Harbor Belt argues that the suit will require participation from each of the Union’s
members, negating the Union’s ability to bring the suit on behalf of its members. Indiana Harbor
Belt is half right. The Union can’t pursue the claims for damages on behalf of it employees, but
it can seek an injunction. Indiana Harbor Belt’s motion will therefore be denied in part and
granted in part.
Associational Standing
The concept of standing refers to whether a party may properly pursue its case in court;
namely, whether the court has jurisdiction over the matter. Article III, Section 2 of the
Constitution limits my jurisdiction to “Cases” or “Controversies” where “the plaintiff must have
suffered or be imminently threatened with a concrete and particularized ‘injury in fact’ that is
fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and likely to be redressed by a
4
favorable judicial decision.” Lexmark Intern., Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S.Ct.
1377, 1386 (2014). In other words, the plaintiff must present me with a problem likely caused
by the defendant that I have the authority to fix.
In general, I have authority over only those problems suffered by the actual party
bringing the suit. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975). One exception, however, is that an
association or organization may bring suit on behalf of its members, even where the organization
itself has suffered no injury. Id. at 511. This is “associational standing” and it exists only where
an association can show that “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own
right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c)
neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual
members in the lawsuit.” Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333,
343 (1977). The first two of Hunt’s requirements are based directly on Article III’s
requirements, while the third is prudential, meaning that I have discretion as to how it is applied.
Milwaukee Police Assn. v. Bd. of Fire & Police Commissioners, 708 F.3d 921, 928 (7th Cir.
2013) citing United Food & Commer. Workers Union, Local 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc., 517 U.S.
544 (1996). Even so, my discretion is guided by three broad principles: “the general prohibition
on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized
grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that
a plaintiff’s complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” Lexmark
Intern., Inc., 134 S.Ct. at 1386 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Indiana Harbor Belt does not challenge the first two prongs of the test for associational
standing [see D.E. 36 at 5], so all that remains for me to determine is whether the third Hunt
5
prong—that “neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of
individual members in the lawsuit”—is satisfied.
6
Rule 23 Class Certification
At the outset, I need to dispose of a strawman argument Indiana Harbor Belt puts forward
before I delve into the substance of the motion. Indiana Harbor Belt makes a lot of the fact that
the Union’s amended complaint is virtually identical to its original complaint asserting classbased claims, going so far as to accuse the Union of a “procedural sleight of hand” [D.E. 36 at 1]
by dropping its class claims and instead pursuing its suit in an organizational representative
capacity. But the law on this point is clear—an association need not proceed under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 to have standing to sue on behalf of its members. Int’l Union, United
Auto. v. Brock, 477 U.S. 274, 289 (1986); Retired Chicago Police Assn. v. City of Chicago, 7
F.3d 584, 600 (7th Cir. 1993). Indeed, class certification under Rule 23 and associational
standing are evaluated on two different rubrics and “although Rule 23 may provide a useful
analogy in some cases in which an organization represents its members, it is not controlling.”
Local 194, Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union v. Standard Brands, Inc., 540 F.2d
864, 867 (7th Cir. 1976). In other words, just because an organization cannot meet the
requirements of Rule 23 class certification, it does not mean that the organization will
automatically also not qualify for associational standing. Such a rule would wholly negate an
organization’s recognized ability to sue on behalf of just one of its members because in those
instances, an organization would be unable to meet the requirements of Rule 23 such as
numerosity, common-question, and typicality. Id. That the Union has removed its class claims
is therefore of no consequence to the issue at hand.
The Union’s Claim for Damages
The Union has already essentially conceded that its claim for damages requires too much
7
participation by individual members to satisfy Hunt’s third prong [see e.g. DE 39 at nn. 2]. With
good reason: claims for damages are generally “not common to the entire membership, nor
shared by all in equal degree” and therefore require individualized proof where the organization
itself has suffered no monetary harm. Warth, 422 U.S. at 515-16; accord Local 194, 540 F.2d at
865 (union has no standing to seek “individualized forms of monetary relief” on behalf of its
members). I will therefore DISMISS the Union’s claim for economic and punitive damages.
The Union’s Claim for Injunctive Relief
The narrow issue I must resolve, then, is whether the Union has associational standing to
request that I issue an injunction against Indiana Harbor Belt on behalf of the Union’s members
to remedy alleged race discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Section
1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. I conclude that it does.
Associations generally have standing to pursue injunctive relief on behalf of their
members. Warth, 422 U.S. at 515 (“If . . . the association seeks a declaration, injunction, or some
other form of prospective relief, it can reasonably be supposed that the remedy, if granted, will
inure to the benefit of those members of the association actually injured.”). More specifically,
unions generally have standing to represent members in discrimination claims asking for
injunctive relief:
[T]he doctrine of associational standing recognizes that the primary reason people join
an organization is often to create an effective vehicle for vindicating interests that they
share with others. The only practical judicial policy when people pool their capital,
their interests, or their activities under a name and form that will identify collective
interests, often is to permit the association or corporation in a single case to vindicate
the interests of all.
Brock, 477 U.S. at 290 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Local 194, 540 F.2d at 866
8
(finding union has standing to pursue injunctive relief for Title VII claims on behalf of its
members and that “[t]he effectiveness of these suits can be increased by allowing unions to place
their financial resources and expertise behind the suit.”). And contrary to Indiana Harbor Belt’s
assertion [D.E. 36 at 8], standing does not fail merely because of a conflict between union
member interests. Local 194, 540 at 866 (“Often a union finds itself in the position of
representing a membership whose interests conflict, not only in Title VII cases but in its
collective bargaining role. This does not disqualify it from acting at all.” (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted)).
Under Hunt, associational standing does fail where “the claim asserted [or] the relief
requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Hunt, 432 U.S. at
343. What constitutes such individual participation has been the subject of some debate and
confusion. And as the Seventh Circuit has observed: “While the Hunt test is well-established in
our jurisprudence and enjoys the specific reaffirmation of the Supreme Court in Brock, the
application of the various prongs has, to this date, produced a caselaw that does not lend itself to
easy distillation.” Retired Chicago Police Assn., 7 F.3d at 600.
While this area of the law is a bit murky, what is clear is that some participation by
individual members in a lawsuit is permissible so long as not all of the members need to
participate. Id. at 601-02. How could the rule be otherwise? How would an association ever be
able to make a Title VII case, for example, without some aggrieved member of the association
talking about it? This sensible approach follows the Warth Court’s holding that “so long as the
nature of the claim and of the relief sought does not make the individual participation of each
injured party indispensable to proper resolution of the cause, the association may be an
9
appropriate representative of its members, entitled to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.” Warth,
422 U.S. at 511(emphasis added). As the Retired Chicago Police Association court observed:
We can discern no indication in Warth, Hunt, or Brock that the Supreme Court
intended to limit representational standing to cases in which it would not be necessary
to take any evidence from individual members of an association. Such a stringent
limitation on representational standing cannot be squared with the Court’s assessment
in Brock of the efficiencies for both the litigant and the judicial system from the use
of representational standing.
Id. at 601-02. This makes sense because if the rule required zero individual participation, then
associational standing would not exist because an association could bring a suit only when it was
harmed, eviscerating the purpose of the doctrine.
Indiana Harbor Belt claims, however, that the injunction the Union seeks “cannot be
accomplished without significant individualized proof and testimony” [DE 40 at 4] because I will
have to “inquire about each member’s race, what department they worked in, who was their
supervisor, and to what actions (noose) or comments (‘N _ _ _ _ _’, ‘mixed-breed’, ‘half-breed’)
they were subjected.” [DE 36 at 8]. I disagree. Although it is unclear exactly what the Union is
requesting I do by way of an injunction, the Union’s allegations paint a picture of a system-wide
pattern or practice of alleged discrimination. And discrimination claims of this type do not require
proof from each individual and are instead evaluated at the liability phase on objective criteria
establishing a company-wide pattern-or-practice of discrimination. See e.g. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters
v. U.S., 431 U.S. 324, 360, (1977) (“At the initial, ‘liability’ stage of a pattern-or-practice suit the
Government is not required to offer evidence that each person for whom it will ultimately seek relief
was a victim of the employer’s discriminatory policy.”); Puffer v. Allstate Insurance Co., 675 F.3d
709, 716 (7th Cir. 2012) (“Pattern-or-practice claims require a showing that an employer regularly
10
and purposefully discriminates against a protected group. Plaintiffs must prove that discrimination
was the company’s standard operating procedure—the regular rather than the unusual practice.”
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted)); Allen v. Int’l Truck & Engine Corp., No. 1:02-CV902-RLY-TAB, 2006 WL 694345 at * 1 (S.D.Ind. 2006) (“In a pattern-and-practice case, a plaintiff
must show that, given the totality of the circumstances, an objectively reasonable person would find
the existence of: (1) a hostile environment of racial harassment within the company (a hostile
environment pattern or practice); and (2) a company policy of tolerating a workforce permeated with
severe or pervasive racial harassment.” ).
The Union points me to a case that really drives home why it is unnecessary for each the
Union member to participate in this litigation. In Employees Committed for Justice v. Eastman
Kodak Co., the plaintiffs accused the defendants of racial discrimination in various employment
practices and of maintaining a hostile work environment involving instances remarkably similar to
those alleged by the Union, such as the use of racial slurs including the n-word and depictions of
African-Americans hanging from nooses. 407 F.Supp.2d 423, 430 (W.D.N.Y. 2005).
The
defendants argued that the organization could not maintain associational standing on behalf of its
members because proving discrimination under Title VII generally, and a hostile work environment
specifically, required individual, subjective proof. Id. at 428-29. In rejecting this argument, the
court stated that “the liability phase of the hostile work environment or retaliation claim will not
hinge on subjective and ‘individualized proof,’ but rather the existence of a pervasive system-wide
pattern or practice or discrimination that is equally harmful and applicable to all members of the
protected class.” Id. at 433-34.
The court further observed:
11
[I]t is not necessary for each class member to introduce evidence that he or she found
it “subjectively unwelcome” to be called “nigger” or “black boy” or be taunted by
racist graffiti and depictions of African-Americans hanging from nooses posted in
work lockers, elevators and bathrooms in order to demonstrate the existence of a
pervasive, systemic and widespread hostile work environment.
Id. at 430. Although not controlling in this matter, I find the reasoning of the court to be both
persuasive and helpful, particularly given that there isn’t a lot of Seventh Circuit precedent
addressing what level of individual participation may be required in a Title VII or Section 1981
claim brought by an association. That it would be unnecessary to hear from each and every
individual affected that various racial slurs, depictions, and other such discriminatory treatment
was unwelcome just makes common sense.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, I will GRANT the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint [DE 35] with respect to the Union’s request for economic and punitive
damages, but DENY the motion with respect to the Union’s request for injunctive relief. The
Union need not file an amended complaint reflecting this ruling.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: May 6, 2014
s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?