Dugan et al v. International Union Security

Filing 28

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder GRANTING 9 Motions to Dismiss by Defendant International Union Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America, Local No. 796. (pjw, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GEORGE T. DUGAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AMTEX SECURITY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ROGER LANE,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMTEX SECURITY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

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

Case No. CIV-11-176-SPS

Case No. CIV-11-201-SPS
Consolidated with Case No.
CIV-11-176 for Pre-Trial Purposes

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
BY DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL UNION SECURITY, POLICE
AND FIRE PROFESSIONALS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 796
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant International Union Security,
Police and Fire Professionals of America, Local Union No. 796’s (“Union”) Motions to
Dismiss in Cases No. CIV-11-176, Dugan, et al. v. Amtex Security Inc., et al. (“Dugan”)
[Docket No. 9] and No. CIV-11-201, Lane v. Amtex Security Inc., et al. (“Lane”) [Docket
No. 11]. These cases have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes and the Motions to
Dismiss raise the same issues, so the Court will address both pending motions in this
Order. Defendant Union challenges the Plaintiffs’ Petitions [CIV-11-176, Docket No. 2,
Ex. 3; CIV-11-201, Docket No. 2, Ex. 3] pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for failing

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the
Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss are hereby GRANTED.
In both cases, Plaintiffs filed suit in Oklahoma state court, alleging breach of
contract claims against Defendant Union, and wrongful discharge claims against
Defendant Amtex Security, Inc (“Amtex”). Defendants removed both cases to this Court,
and the Union has filed these pending Motions to Dismiss. As an initial matter, all
plaintiffs concede that any state law breach-of-contract claim is preempted by section 301
of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185. See Mock v. T.G.
& Y. Stores Co., 971 F.2d 522, 529 (10th Cir. 1992) (“Under the LMRA, ‘if the
resolution of a state-law claim depends upon the meaning of a collective-bargaining
agreement’ the state-law claim is preempted.”) [citations omitted]. The issue, therefore,
is whether Plaintiffs have stated a section 301 breach-of-contract claim against Defendant
Union.
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are
not required, but the statement of the claim under Rule 8(a)(2) must be “more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.
Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007), citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). “A pleading that offers
labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of further
factual enhancement. . . . To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
--2--

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face. 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, 129 S. Ct. at 1949, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 556, 557, 570
[internal quotation marks omitted]. “While legal conclusions can provide the framework
of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950.
In both cases, Plaintiffs are former security guards who had worked for Defendant
Amtex but were fired after failing a physical agility regulation requiring them to run 1.5
miles in 17.5 minutes or less. Plaintiffs allege that the new regulation “grandfathered” in
an exception allowing guards over fifty years old to walk a mile in twenty minutes or
less, but that they were not allowed the benefit of this exception and were fired when they
could not meet the new requirement. In Dugan, Plaintiffs specifically alleged that the
Union “breached the agreement it made with [them] by not acting in good faith and
dealing fairly with them in that Defendant Union did not advocate for [them] nor did it
demand that the exceptions of Army Regulation 190-56 previously granted be honored
and enforced or that Defendant Amtex waive the new requirements of Army Regulation
190-56. . . .” Case No. CIV-11-176-SPS, Docket No. 2, Ex. 3 ¶ 58. They further alleged
that the Union told them “there was nothing [it] could do,” when they complained of
Amtex’s hiring/firing practices. Id. at ¶ 47.

In Lane, Plaintiff alleged that the Union

“failed to act in good faith and deal fairly with Plaintiff by failing to advocate for Plaintiff
relating to the physical training test, including demanding that previously granted
exceptions be honored or new requirements be waived as allowed by Regulation 190-56.”
--3--

Case No. CIV-11-201-SPS, Docket No. 2, Ex. 3 at ¶ 23, 25.
To state a claim for relief under section 301, a discharged worker must—whether
suing the union, the employer, or both—prove “(1) [s]ome conduct by the worker’s union
that breached the duty of fair representation; (2) [a] causal connection showing that the
union’s breach affected the integrity of the arbitration process, and; (3) [a] violation of
the collective bargaining agreement by the company.” Webb v. ABF Freight System, Inc.,
155 F.3d 1230, 1239 (10th Cir. 1998), citing Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424
U.S. 554, 568 (1976). “[A] union breaches its duty [of fair representation] when its
conduct is ‘arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith,’ as, for example, when it ‘arbitrarily
ignore[s] a meritorious grievance or process[es] it in [a] perfunctory fashion.’”
International Brotherhood of Elec. Workers v. Foust, 442 U.S. 42, 47 (1979), citing Vaca
v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 190-91 (1967). “[A] union’s actions are arbitrary only if, in light
of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union’s actions, the union’s behavior
is so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness’ as to be irrational.” Air Line Pilots
Association, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 67 (1991) [internal citation omitted].
Additionally, “[b]ad faith requires a showing of fraud, deceitful action or dishonest
action. . . . Simply showing that the Union did not represent them as vigorously as it
could have does not establish a section 301 violation.” Mock, 971 F.2d at 531.
The Dugan plaintiffs argue that they sufficiently alleged a section 301 claim
because their complaint states that the Union “failed to advocate for Plaintiff’s
contractual rights and told Plaintiffs that it could take no action” to help them. Id. at ¶ 42.
Lane likewise asserts that he has sufficiently alleged dishonesty and arbitrary action. A
--4--

careful reading of the complaints, however, reveals that Plaintiffs only alleged false
representation by Defendant Amtex.

Further, Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations that

Defendant Union failed to act in good faith are insufficient. Plaintiffs’ Petitions in both
cases therefore lack sufficient factual allegations to “[nudge their] claims . . . across the
line from conceivable to plausible[,]” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1951 [citation and internal
quotations omitted], and those claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Consequently, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant International Union Security,
Police and Fire Professionals of America, Local Union No. 796’s Motions to Dismiss
[CIV-11-176-SPS, Docket No. 9; CIV-11-201-SPS, Docket No. 11] are hereby
GRANTED, and the Plaintiffs’ Petitions as to Defendant Union are hereby DISMISSED.
The Plaintiffs shall have fourteen days to amend their complaints to plead plausible
claims under section 301.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 2011.

--5--