Robicheaux v. International Longshoremen's Association Local Number 24
Filing
20
OPINION on Summary Judgment. (Signed by Judge Lynn N Hughes) Parties notified. (ghassan, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNffiD STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ENTERED
July 13, 2016
Adam Robicheaux,
Plaintiff,
'1Icysus
International Longshoremen's
Association Local No. 24,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
David J. Bradley, Clerk
Civil Action H-15-3305
Opinion on Summary Judgment
I.
Introduction.
A union agent skipped a non-union driver while assigning trucking jobs at a union
hiring hall. When the driver complained, the agent responded aggressively, yelling insults. The
driver immediately filed a grievance alleging racial discrimination. The union found the agent's
behavior punishable but not racially motivated.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the grievance, the driver sued under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. The suit was not filed within the period oflimitations, but even if it
were timely, it would not be successful. The law says that a claim may not be brought in court
if a collective bargaining agreement explicitly states it must be resolved through grievances.
The union's contract creates a possible conflict because it both declares the union
grievance the sole remedy for employment claims and reserves the right of workers to file a
claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. If the contract bound Robicheaux
to use only the grievance, the grievance has been completed and precludes new lawsuits
predicated on the same event. If the contract did permit Robicheaux to sue, he still did not state
a viable claim of racial discrimination.
2.
Background.
Adam Robicheaux signed the list to be assigned as a driver at the International
Longshoremen's Association hiring hall one morning, and waited for his number to be called.
Scott Cox, a union business agent, went down the list assigning jobs by the order that the
drivers signed, but he skipped Robicheaux. When Robicheaux complained to Cox that he had
not been called, Cox yelled at him, calling him "boy" and "non-union boy." Robicheaux filed
a grievance with the union saying that "boy" is racially derogatory. The union found Cox's
skipping Robicheaux and having been hostile violated union rules but was not racially
motivated. The union suspended Cox for ten days and sent rum to an anger management
course.
3.
Statute of Limitations.
The worker must sue within 90 days of receiving his letter from the Commission
that gives rum the right to sue. I Robicheaux received his letter onJuly 20 but did not sue
until November 6, nineteen days after the deadline. 2 His claims are barred by limitations.
Even if his claims were not barred, he would take nothing.
4.
Union Contract.
The Port of Houston's memorandum on grievances says that its making a union
grievance the sole forum for employment discrimination claims do not "prevent any person
from filing a charge with the EEOC."3 The law says if discrimination claims are explicitly
reserved for union grievance by a collective bargaining agreement, a complainant may not bring
a lawsuit after a grievance. 4 The law does not address a parallel explicit reservation of the
opportunity to sue.
142 USCS § 2000e-5 (fj (I) (1964).
2Complaint, page I, item 5.
3Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit I-A, page I, paragraph 2.
Penn Plaza LLC 'V. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247, 260-64 (2009); Ibarra 'V. United Parcel
Service, 695 F'3d 354,356 (5th Cir. 2012).
414
A.
Grievance.
If the contract precludes Robicheaux from bringing his Commission complaint, only
his claims about the grievance should be considered. Robicheaux has made two claims about
the grievance: that his race was used against him in the hiring hall and that the umon did not
fairly represent him during the proceeding.
(I)
One Cause, One Decision.
If Robicheaux may not bring another suit, his racial discrimination claim has been
decided. He pursued the grievance to completion, and the union came to a final decision about
Cox's behavior and his punishment. The union's decision precludes a later parallel claim.
Robicheaux filed a grievance on the same day he was skipped,]une 4,2015, and filed
a Commission complaint thirty-six days later. Robicheaux received the letter from the
Commission giving him permission to sue onJuly 20. The union handles grievances initially
with mediation; next the worker can request three steps: a trial, an appeal, and a third-party
arbitration. If the worker does not appeal after a given stage, the union's decision from that stage
is final. Robicheaux pursued the grievance through Step Two, the appeal, in October. He sued
here on November 6. The Step-Two decision was signed onJanuary 14,2016. Robicheaux did
not request arbitration, making Step Two final.
Federal law requires union arbitration and does not allow courts to hear collectivelybargained labor disputes unless there has been bad faith by the union. 5 Matters that have been
agreed to be arbitrated must be arbitrated, with special emphasis on unions' internal
arbitration. 6 Regardless of the label placed on the steps of internal adjudication by a union,
grievance decisions are the equivalent of an arbitration.? The decisions of the constituent steps
of a grievance are parallel to a final judgment at any point in the hierarchy of a court; neither can
be collaterally attacked.
7General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 89v. Riss & Co., 372
U.S. 517, 519 (1963).
Because the grievance was final it precludes future suits or arbitrations of the same
claims. A claim is precluded if the:
•
Parties in this case and an earlier case are identical;
•
Decision-maker had jurisdiction;
•
Decision-maker reached a final decision on the merits; and
•
Same event gives generated both claims. 8
This grievance fits these requirements. The exact same parties are in this suit as were
in the grievance. The generated claims have the exact same facts. The union contract specified
that this type of claim could be resolved through grievance, giving the decision-maker in the
grievance jurisdiction. 9 The union reached a decision that was described as "final and binding."
If the contract precludes another suit, the grievance decision is final and may not be
retried by this court.
(2)
Fair Representation.
In his response to the union's motion for summary judgment, Robicheaux claimed that
the union breached its duty to represent him fairly in his grievance. 10 He never pleaded this; it
was only in that response and not in an amended complaint. Even if he had pleaded the claim
properly, the union did not breach that duty. Robicheaux's disagreement with the grievance's
outcome does not indicate bad faith by the union in the proceeding. Robicheaux's assertions
of bad faith in the response to motion for summary judgment are either unsupported by the
documents Robicheaux produced or nullified by other evidence in the record. The grievance
included the basic elements of adjudication: Robicheaux had notice and the opportunity to be
heard.
8Murchison Capital Partners, L.P. 'tI. Nuance Communs., Inc., 62S Fed. Appx. 617, 621
(sth Gr. 201 S).
10
29 U.s.c. § I8S; see Vaca
'tI.
Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967)'
B.
Commission.
If the contract allows Robicheaux to bring this suit despite the completed grievance, he
may sue for racial discrimination. Robicheaux had an obvious complaint that he was mistreated
because of his lack of union membership, but his racial claim is different. In a union hiring hall
where forty,five percent percent of longshoremen are black like Robicheaux, his lack of
membership rather than his race differentiated him. The only characteristic Cox specifically
targeted in his insults was that Robicheaux was a "non,union boy." Robicheaux even said in
his Commission complaint that " ... his comments were belittling to any African American man
or any man of any nationaliry." Though demeaning, Robicheaux's description conceded that the
insult "boy" did not necessarily refer to his race.
5.
Conclusion.
Robicheaux will take nothing from the union except the relief it has allowed through
gnevance.
Signed onJuly 13,2016, at Houston, Texas.
United States DistrictJudge
'5'
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?