Mathis v. CWA Local Union 4320 et al

Filing 41

OPINION AND ORDER denying 36 Motion to Compel; denying 39 Motion for Default Judgment; granting 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 14 Motion for Default Judgment; finding as moot 21 Motion to Strike ; finding as moot 24 Motion to have all court pleadings sent by certified mail. Signed by Judge George C Smith on 8-8-11. (ga) Modified on 8/10/2011 to clarify text (kk2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

EVONNA MATHIS,
Plaintiff,

Case No.: 2:10-cv-1093
JUDGE SMITH
Magistrate Judge Kemp

v.

CWA LOCAL UNION 4320, et al.,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Communication Workers of America Local
Union No. 4320's (“CWA”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9). For the reasons that follow,
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Court will address a number of other
motions pending in this case in turn, including: Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 14);
Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment (Docs. 21 and 39),
Plaintiff’s motion to order Defendants to serve all documents by certified mail (Doc. 24), and
Plaintiff’s motion to compel the court to have the Defendant’s respond to the Complaint (Doc.
36).
I.

BACKGROUND

In December 2010, Plaintiff Evonna Mathis commenced this action against Defendant
CWA, and six employees of CWA (collectively the “CWA Defendants”), for their alleged failure
to adequately represent her in a grievance filed against AT&T. In January 2011, Defendant CWA
filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Mathis’ claim pursuant to Rule 16(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. In March 2011, Plaintiff Mathis moved for default judgment against CWA based
on her belief that CWA never responded to her original complaint. Defendant CWA countered in
April 2011, with a motion to strike Plaintiff Mathis’ motion for default judgment.
This case arises out of Plaintiff Mathis’ belief that her civil rights were violated by AT&T
when they allegedly electronically tracked her computer and cell phone activity and physically
followed her while she was in her home or traveling. Plaintiff Mathis believes that AT&T’s
tracking, following, and harassing actions occurred because she is a black woman. Based on
these actions allegedly committed by AT&T, Plaintiff Mathis approached CWA, the local union
that represents her interests, for representation. The claims in the case at bar are based on
Plaintiff Mathis’ belief that the employees of CWA did not adequately represent her in her
grievance against AT&T.
Plaintiff Mathis, a former employee of AT&T who paid her union dues to CWA, believes
she was not represented according to the bargaining agreement between AT&T and CWA.
Plaintiff Mathis contends that when she approached CWA with grievances against AT&T, she
was given erroneous advice which were outright lies. (Pl.’s Compl., Doc. 3). She also contends
that CWA did not follow the “steps of grievances... correctly, accurately, or efficiently.” Id. For
example, Plaintiff Mathis cites a grievance she filed in September 2010 that Defendant CWA, by
December 2010, had not yet ruled on or commenced discovery. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff Mathis
asserts that she did not receive any documentation when AT&T disciplined her, and that CWA
made no efforts to oppose that lack of documentation. Id. Plaintiff Mathis alleges that CWA did
not properly represent her, as evidenced by the complaints above, due to racial discrimination. Id.

2

Defendant CWA argues that Plaintiff Mathis only presents conclusory allegations and fails
to allege any facts that support these allegations. (Doc. 9, 5-6). Therefore, the CWA Defendants
move for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against them based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal of a lawsuit for “failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.” A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is directed solely to
the complaint and any exhibits attached to it. Roth Steel Prods. v. Sharon Steel Corp., 705 F.2d
134, 155 (6th Cir. 1983). The merits of the claims set forth in the complaint are not at issue on a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Consequently, a complaint will be dismissed
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) only if there is no law to support the claims made, or if the facts alleged
are insufficient to state a claim, or if on the face of the complaint there is an insurmountable bar to
relief. See Rauch v. Day & Night Mfg. Corp., 576 F.2d 697, 702 (6th Cir. 1978). Rule 12(b)(6)
must be read in conjunction with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
requires the complaint to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief[.]”
A court, in considering a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, must “construe the complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff,” accepting as true all the plaintiff’s factual allegations.
Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009). Although in this context all of the factual
allegations in the complaint are taken as true, a court is “not bound to accept as true a legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). Consequently, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
3

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
Furthermore, to survive dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a claim must contain
sufficient factual matter to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, at 570.
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, at
1950. While a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” its “factual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the
allegations in the complaint are true.” Twombly, at 555. “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not
permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged –
but it has not ‘show[n]’ – ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ” Iqbal, at 1950 (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). In the final analysis, the task of determining plausibility is “context-specific [and]
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id.
III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Mathis is proceeding pro se, and accordingly, this Court must construe Plaintiff’s
allegations liberally and apply a less stringent standard to those pleadings than to a complaint
drafted by counsel. Burrell v. Henderson, 483 F.Supp.2d 595, 599-600 (S.D. Ohio 2007).
However, a court does not need to accept as true “legal conclusions or unwarranted factual
inferences.” Id. at 600.
Plaintiff Mathis argues that CWA, and six employees of CWA, has not adequately
represented her per a bargaining agreement between AT&T and CWA, and therefore brings a
claim based on “fair labor/management violations.” This Court interprets Plaintiff Mathis’ claims
as arising under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. §
4

185 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C.A. §2000e. Plaintiff
Mathis is seeking compensation for the loss of her employment with AT&T based on CWA’s
alleged failure of representation.
The CWA Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Complaint against the employees of CWA
must be dismissed because the LMRA does not provide a cause of action against individuals
working for a union. Therefore, Plaintiff Mathis has not stated a claim for which relief can be
granted against the employees of CWA. Regarding CWA itself, Defendant CWA argues that
Plaintiff Mathis has not stated a claim for which relief can be granted because her complaint only
alleges negligence or poor judgement, both of which are insufficient to state a claim for a breach
of the duty of fair representation under the LMRA. Additionally, CWA argues that Plaintiff
Mathis’ claim of racial bias does not allege any specific facts and is a conclusory allegation.
Therefore, CWA contends that Plaintiff Mathis’ claim against CWA should be dismissed. The
court will address these claims in turn.
A.

Plaintiff’s Claims Under the LMRA
Plaintiff Mathis has raised two claims under the LMRA. The first claim alleges a breach of

the duty of fair representation against individual employees of CWA. The second alleges a breach
of the duty of fair representation against CWA in its capacity as a union.
1.

Plaintiff’s Claims Against Individual Defendants Under the LMRA

Plaintiff Mathis’ first cause of action is against six employees of CWA in their individual
capacity for an alleged breach of the duty of fair representation. This cause of action is governed
by Section 301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C.A. §185. Section 301(b) of the LMRA states:
Any labor organization which represents employees in an industry
5

affecting commerce as defined in this chapter and any employer
whose activities affect commerce as defined in this chapter shall be
bound by the acts of its agents. Any such labor organization may
sue or be sued as an entity and in behalf of the employees whom it
represents in the courts of the United States. Any money judgment
against a labor organization in a district court of the United States
shall be enforceable only against the organization as an entity and
against its assets, and shall not be enforceable against any individual
member or his assets.
“It is well-settled case law that officers of labor unions cannot be held liable under § 301 of the
LMRA in their individual capacity.” Burrell, 483 F.Supp.2d at 599. In other words, § 301 only
provides for actions against a union and not individuals working on behalf of the union. Id.
Therefore, insofar as Plaintiff’s claims are against the six employees of CWA in their individual
capacity, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under §301 of the LMRA.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s LMRA claims against the six employees of CWA in their individual
capacity are hereby DISMISSED.
2.

Plaintiff’s Claims Against CWA Under the LMRA

In order for a plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss for a breach of the duty of fair
representation, the plaintiff must show that the “union’s conduct towards a member of the
collective bargaining unit [was] arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” United Steelworkers of
Am. v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362, 372 (1990). The Sixth Circuit has stated that “[e]ach of these
wrongs is mutually independent, meaning, that the three named factors are three separate and
distinct possible routes by which a union may be found to have breached its duty.” Garrison v.
Cassens Transp. Co., 334 F.3d 528, 538 (6th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). In
summarizing the duties of a union, the Supreme Court of the United States stated:
It is now well established that, as the exclusive bargaining
6

representative of the employees, ... the Union [has] a statutory duty
fairly to represent all of those employees, both in its collective
bargaining ... and in its enforcement of the resulting collective
bargaining agreement. Under this doctrine, the exclusive agent's
statutory authority to represent all members of a designated unit
includes a statutory obligation to serve the interests of all members
without hostility or discrimination toward any, and to exercise its
discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid
arbitrary conduct. This duty of fair representation is of major
importance, but a breach occurs only when a union's conduct
toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary,
discriminatory, or in bad faith.
United Steelworkers of Am., 495 U.S. at 372.
The Sixth Circuit has held that “the duty of fair representation is implicated only when an
individual or group is treated differently by a union-either through discrimination, bad faith or
arbitrary conduct-than another individual, group, or collective.” Chapman v. United Steelworkers
of Am., Int’l Union, 861 F.2d 719 (table), 1988 WL 118043 (6th Cir. 1988). Specifically
regarding discrimination, a plaintiff’s claim of a breach of the duty of fair representation will
survive a motion to dismiss only if the alleged discrimination is “intentional, severe, and unrelated
to legitimate union objectives.” Trail v. Int’l Bhd.. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs Warehouseman and
Helpers of Am., 542 F.2d 961, 968 (6th Cir. 1976). Racial discrimination is not a legitimate union
objective.
However, without additional information, alleging that a union did not sufficiently pursue
a grievance is “legally insufficient to support a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation.”
Dobrski v. Ford Motor Co. 698 F.Supp.2d 966, 991 (N.D. Ohio 2010). While a union may not
“arbitrarily ignore a meritorious grievance or process it in a perfunctory fashion,” an employee
does not have an absolute right to have his grievance taken to arbitration. Dobrski, 698 F.Supp.2d

7

at 991 (citing Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 191 (1967)).
In the case at bar, Plaintiff Mathis alleges that Defendant CWA has given her “erroneous
advice – lies.” (Doc. 1, 6). Plaintiff Mathis also alleges that CWA intentionally failed to pursue
her complaint against AT&T due to racial discrimination. (Doc. 1, 6). However, the above
statements by Plaintiff Mathis are conclusory allegations and are insufficient under the heightened
pleading standards from Twombly/Iqbal.
Plaintiff Mathis more specifically alleges that CWA took no action by December 2010 on
a grievance she filed in September of 2010, and that the delay was unwarranted. However, this
allegation does not suggest that Defendant CWA breached its duty of fair representation by
engaging in actions that are arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. There are numerous reasons
why a union may decide not to move forward with a grievance for a period of three months.
Additionally, based on Dobrsk, simply alleging that a union did not sufficiently pursue a
grievance, without more, is “legally insufficient to support a claim for breach of the duty of fair
representation.” 698 F.Supp.2d at 991.
Plaintiff Mathis also claims that CWA did not require any documentation from AT&T
when it disciplined her. Similar to Plaintiff Mathis’ allegation regarding the timeliness of CWA’s
actions regarding her grievance, this allegation does not present evidence that CWA’s actions are
arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Additionally, as required by Chapman, Plaintiff Mathis
has failed to allege facts that would show Defendant CWA treated her differently than an
individual from another group based on a discriminatory, arbitrary, or bad faith motive.
Therefore, Plaintiff Mathis’ claims are insufficient under Dobrsk and Chapman. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant CWA are hereby dismissed without prejudice.
8

B.

The Plaintiff’s Claims Based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Court interprets Plaintiff Mathis’ claims against the six employees of CWA to include

a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). See 42
U.S.C.A. §2000e. Plaintiff alleges that CWA discriminated against her by failing to adequately
represent her based on her race. Title VII makes it unlawful for a labor organization “to exclude
or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of
his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin[.]” 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(c).
The Sixth Circuit, following a majority of other courts, has held that Congress “did not
intend individual employees to he held liable under the definition of ‘employer’ under Title VII.”
Burrell, 483 F.Supp.2d at 600. Title VII defines an employer as “a person engaged in an industry
affecting commerce who has fifteen employees or more employees or . . . any agent of such
person.” 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b). The majority of courts addressing the individual liability issue have
concluded that “the obvious purpose of the agent provision was to incorporate respondeat
superior liability into the statute.” Wathen v. General Elec. Co., 115 F.3d 400, 405 (6th Cir.
1997). The Court also noted that the purpose of limiting liability under Title VII to employers
with greater than fifteen employees was because “Congress did not want to burden small entities
with the costs associated with litigating discrimination claims.” Id. at 406. “It is inconceivable
that a Congress concerned with protecting small employers would simultaneously allow civil
liability to run against individual employees.” Id. The legislative history of Title VII indicates that
agent liability was not discussed during Senate floor debates, “implying that Congress did not
contemplate agent liability under Title VII.” Id. Additionally, a successful Title VII plaintiff is
limited to reinstatement and back pay, remedies that are only available from an employer. Id. As
9

the statute contains no provision for damages to be paid by individuals, this is further evidence of
a lack of Congressional intent to hold individuals liable. Id.
While it is clear that an employee cannot be held liable under Title VII, that same
determination did not originally apply to union officials. However, the Sixth Circuit later held that
“individual union officials cannot be held liable under Title VII[.]” Creusere v. Southwest Ohio
Reg’l Council of Carpenters, No. C-1-01-0021, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5217, at *12 (S.D. Ohio
Mar. 28, 2002). This decision is based in part on Congressional intent to not hold individual
employees liable under Title VII as discussed above. Id. at *14. Additionally, Title VII’s
definition of a “labor organization” includes an agent provision identical to the agent provision
included in the definition of an employer. Id. at *15. “The court can find no reason why the labor
organization agent provision should be interpreted differently that the employer agent provision.”
Id. “Therefore, . . . the Court concludes that the purpose of the agent provision in the labor
organization definition is to incorporate respondeat superior liability into the statutes, rather than
to impose agent liability on union officials.” Id. Therefore, based the identical agent provision for
labor organizations and employment organizations and evidence of Congressional intent not to
hold an individual liable under Title VII, a union official is not liable in his individual capacity for
discrimination under a Title VII claim.
Therefore, Plaintiff Mathis’ Title VII claim against the six employees of CWA is hereby
DISMISSED.
C.

Default Judgment and Motion to Strike
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, a default judgement must be entered if a

party has “failed to plead or otherwise defend” a case and that failure is shown by “affidavit or
10

otherwise.” In the case at bar, Plaintiff Mathis filed her original complaint on December 14, 2010
and CWA responded with a motion to dismiss on January 18, 2011. CWA’s motion to dismiss is
a sufficient act showing an intent to defend the case, and therefore the requirements of Rule 55(a)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not met. Plaintiff Mathis’ motions for default
judgment are DENIED. Similarly, Plaintiff has moved to compel Defendants to respond to her
Complaint. Defendants have responded in the form of a Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED.
Based on the Court’s decision to deny Plaintiff Mathis’ motions for default judgment,
CWA’s motion to strike is MOOT.
D.

Motion to Serve Court’s Documents by Certified Mail
In the Sixth Circuit, when a plaintiff’s privacy is at stake, there is precedent requiring a

defendant to send documentation to the plaintiff via certified mail, instead of regular first-class
U.S. mail. For example, in Aslani v. Sparrow Health Systems, the court held that the plaintiff’s
health records should be returned via certified mail because the cost of certified mail, when
viewed in the context of the cost of the entire litigation, is reasonable when compared to the
plaintiff’s interest in maintaining the privacy of her medical history. No. 1:08-cv-298, 2010 WL
623673, at *7 (W.D. Mich. 2010).
This Court concludes that employment information, while usually not as sensitive as
medical records, may contain information a plaintiff wishes to keep private. In the case at bar, the
increased costs of sending documentation to Plaintiff Mathis via certified mail is relatively
insubstantial when viewed in light of the total cost of litigation. Therefore, this Court would
normally grant Plaintiff Mathis’ motion requiring the Defendant CWA to send future
11

communications via certified mail. However, because the CWA Defendant’s motion to dismiss is
granted, Plaintiff Mathis’ motion “to Service all Court Pleadings, Documents and Orders
(Motions) by Certified Mail” is now MOOT.
IV.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the CWA Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) Plaintiff
Mathis’ claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED.
Additionally, Plaintiff Mathis’ motions for a default judgment (Doc. 14 and 39) and motion to
compel (Doc. 36) are DENIED. Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff Mathis’ motion for
default judgment (Doc. 21) is MOOT. Finally, because the CWA Defendant’s motion to dismiss
is granted, Plaintiff Mathis’ motion to have all court pleadings sent to her by certified mail (Doc.
24) is MOOT.
The Clerk of Courts is ordered to removed Documents 9, 14, 21, 24, 36, and 39 from the
Court’s pending motions list.
The Clerk is further instructed to remove this case from the Court’s pending cases list.
This action is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ George C. Smith
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12