James v. United Furniture Workers Local 89262, 21-cv-03893-JCS

ANTHONY ALEXANDER JAMES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS LOCAL 89262, Defendant.

No. 21-cv-03893-JCS

United States District Court, N.D. California

August 16, 2021

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS

RE: DKT. NO. 4

JOSEPH C. SPERO Chief Magistrate Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Anthony Alexander James brought this action asserting various clams against Defendant United Furniture Workers Local 89262 (the "Union") related to the Union's representation of James during his employment and subsequent termination at Sealy Tempur-Pedic ("Sealy").^[1] The Union now moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons discussed below, the Union's motion is GRANTED, and James's complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend no later than September 24 2021.^[2]

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

James initially filed this action pro se in the California Superior Court for Alameda County. See generally Compl. (dkt. 1-1). He asserted state law claims including negligence, fraud, and race discrimination under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). Id. at 6-7, 10-12. The Union removed the case to federal court on May 24, 2021. Not. of Removal (dkt. 1).

B. James's Complaint

Because a plaintiffs factual allegations are generally taken as true on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), this section summarizes the allegations of James's complaint as if true. Nothing in the order should be construed as resolving any issue of fact that might be disputed at a later state of the case.

James, an "African American male," Compl. at 10, ^[3] worked as a driver for Sealy, a mattress business, from 2011 until he was terminated by Sealy in 2016. Compl. at 9-10. The Union represented employees at Sealy who paid union dues. Id. Some time prior to James's termination in 2016, Sealy forged documents that suggested that he had been suspended from his job at Sealy three separate times-suspensions that had not actually occurred. Id. at 9, 11. On the basis of the inaccurate information in the forged documents and James having clocked in three minutes early on March 22, 2016, Sealy terminated James. Id. James alerted the Union of his termination and the forged documents, and the Union informed James that it would file a grievance on James's behalf. Id. at 9. Three months after James's termination, the Union notified James that they would not be able to help him; the Union based this determination on the forged documentation indicating that James was suspended three times. Id.

James subsequently reached out to the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") to seek help. Id. The NLRB contacted the Union, and a meeting was set up to review James's personnel files, at which time the Union became aware that the documentation of James's suspensions lacked necessary signatures. Id. However, James alleges that the Union was aware of the "act" prior to this meeting. Id. at 11. James requested that the Union direct Sealy to reinstate him in his previous position and compensate him with back pay. Id. at 9. Instead, James was offered less money than he was requesting and was asked to agree to a "Last Chance contract" and drug testing. Id. James declined the deal and asked the Union to take his grievance to arbitration. Id. at 9-10. James was then terminated. Id. at 10.

In 2019, James sued Sealy. Id.; see James v. Tempur Sealy Int'l, Inc., No. 18-cv-07130-SI (N.D. Cal.). During that litigation, which eventually settled, ^[4] James and his attorneys discovered that the Union and Sealy corresponded about James's three forged suspension documents prior to James's termination. Compl. at 9. James alleges that "non-African American[s] . . . have options . . . based on [the] union employee contract" that were not accorded to James, including filing grievances, meeting with union representatives about disciplinary actions, and securing union witnesses to disciplinary actions. Id. at 11. James further alleges that Sealy fired him based on information that the Union knew was false and without the Union taking his case to arbitration, none of which would have happened if James was "non-African American." Id. According to James's complaint, a "majority of the African American driver[s] [felt] discrimination," and there was at least one other African American driver who was terminated by Sealy under similar circumstances with the Union's knowledge. Id. at 12.

In emails and other documents attached to James's complaint, Union personnel and attorneys state that although Sealy acknowledged wrongdoing and fired a supervisor who forged at least one signature, negotiations with Sealy were undermined by confrontational interactions between James and other Sealy employees, and the Union intended to withdraw its grievance if James did not accept a $10, 000 settlement offer. Id. at 14-21. Viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to James, the Court understands the inclusion of those documents as alleging that they existed, but not as alleging the truth of their contents-in particular, for the purpose of this motion to dismiss, the Court does not take as true the Union's statements that James acted confrontationally.

Various portions of James's complaint differ as to the claims he is asserting. A state court civil cover sheet indicates that he is asserting claims for unfair business practices, defamation, fraud, and wrongful termination. Id. at 3. The first page of his state court form complaint indicates that he is asserting a contract claim. Id. at 4. Other portions of the form complaint indicates that James is asserting a fraud claim based on "Intentional or Negligent Misrepresentation ... On Wrongful Termination" and false promise, and a negligence claim. Id. at 6-8. The narrative portion of James's complaint asserts a claim for race discrimination under FEHA. Id. at 10-11. Near the end of the narrative portion of his complaint, James refers to claims for unfair business practices, misrepresentation, race discrimination, and negligence. Id. at 12. James attaches a notice of right to sue issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on January 21, 2021. Id. at 22. James states that he would like to settle his claims for $200, 000. Id. at 12.

C. The Union's Motion to Dismiss

The Union moves to dismiss James's complaint on the basis that his complaint is factually vague, and that the claims which are identifiable are preempted by federal law and barred by the statute of limitations. See Mot. (dkt. 4).

The Union argues that all of James's claims are preempted by the Union's duty of fair representation under section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). Id. at 5 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 159). The Union cites Supreme Court precedent holding that a union's duty of fair representation requires it '"to represent all members . . . without hostility or discrimination toward any, to exercise discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.'" Id. (quoting Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 177 (1967)) (ellipsis in original). The Union contends that this statutory duty preempts any state regulation of union activity "performed in the negotiation, administration, and enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement. . . including handling employee grievances." Id. (citing Air Line Pilots Ass 'n, Int'l v. O'Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 67 (1991); Galindo v. Stoody Co., 793 F.2d 1502, 1509 (9th Cir. 1986)). Because James bases his complaint on the Union's decision not to take James's grievance to arbitration, the Union argues that James's claim is based entirely on actions which fall within the scope of the Union's duty of fair representation. Id. at 7.

The Union argues further that, once James's claims are properly construed as preempted by federal law, each of James's claims is barred by the NLRA's six-month statute of limitations, which '"generally begins to run when an employee knows or should know of the alleged breach of duty of fair representation by a union.'" Id. at 7-8 (quoting Galindo, 793 F.2d at 1509, and citing, e.g., DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 169 (1983)). Because James's claims arise out of actions which the Union allegedly took in 2016 and which James must have been aware of no later than the August 4, 2020 settlement of his case against Sealy, the Union contends that James's filing of his complaint on April 12, 2021 fell outside the limitations period.^[5] Id. at 8-9. The Union concludes that the Court should dismiss without leave to amend because the complaint is "clearly and unequivocally time-barred." Id. at 14.

The Union argues in the alternative that, even if James's claims were not time barred, James does not plead sufficient facts to support his claims. Id. at 10. According to the Union, "Plaintiffs own Complaint... shows that the Union acted reasonably and in good faith in processing and settling [James's] grievance." Id. at 11-12. The Union contends that the exhibits that James attached to the Complaint establish that James's engaged in "intemperate conduct" when asked to take a drug test, and that he "acted in a threatening and angry manner towards Company representatives, causing the Company to rescind its offer of reinstatement." Id. at 11. The Union further contends that it chose not to take James's request for reinstatement to arbitration based on a "reasonable belief that an arbitrator would be unlikely to order reinstatement given [James's] aggressive and inappropriate behavior towards the employer." Id. The Union argues that the attachments to James's complaint demonstrate that Union evaluated James's case fairly and negotiated with Sealy on James's behalf in good faith. Id. Based on these contentions, the...