Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10339
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Cole Fowlkes, a journeyman ironworker who was born biologically female and now identifies as male, alleges Local 40 and its business agents refused to refer him for work and subjected him to sex-based discrimination and retaliation for suing the union previously.
- Fowlkes filed an EEOC charge in May 2007 and received a Right-to-Sue letter; he later filed a Title VII suit in 2008 that was dismissed as untimely. He filed a second pro se complaint in July 2011 covering conduct through 2011 and amended it in November 2011.
- The District Court, screening the in forma pauperis amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), dismissed Fowlkes’s Title VII claims sua sponte for failure to allege administrative exhaustion and, finding no federal claims remained, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state and city claims.
- On appeal, Fowlkes argued exhaustion is not jurisdictional and that he also stated a claim under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) for breach of the duty of fair representation by the union in administering the hiring hall.
- The Second Circuit held that failure to exhaust EEOC remedies is a nonjurisdictional precondition subject to equitable defenses (e.g., futility or reasonable relatedness), and that Fowlkes plausibly alleged an NLRA duty-of-fair-representation claim; it vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to exhaust EEOC administrative remedies deprives federal court of subject-matter jurisdiction for Title VII claims | Fowlkes: exhaustion is a precondition, not jurisdictional; equitable defenses (futility, reasonable relatedness) may excuse non-exhaustion | Defendants/District Court: lack of EEOC exhaustion means the court lacks jurisdiction to hear Title VII claims | Court: Failure to exhaust is nonjurisdictional; district court erred by treating it as jurisdictional and must consider equitable defenses on remand |
| Whether futility or reasonable-relatedness can excuse failure to file an EEOC charge for alleged transgender discrimination after 2007 | Fowlkes: EEOC precedent pre-2012 often denied transgender claims, so filing then would have been futile; later incidents may be reasonably related to prior charge | Defendants: plaintiff did not exhaust so claims barred | Court: These equitable defenses may apply; remanded for the district court to consider them on full briefing |
| Whether Fowlkes pleaded an NLRA duty-of-fair-representation claim based on hiring-hall conduct | Fowlkes: union arbitrarily/ discriminatorily administered hiring hall and retaliated for prior litigation, reducing his work opportunities | Defendants: claim time-barred by six-month limitations, facts within six months insufficient, and internal union exhaustion lacking | Court: Given pro se pleadings read liberally, Fowlkes stated a plausible claim under the NLRA that survives §1915(e) screening; limitations and exhaustion issues can be litigated on remand |
| Whether district court properly dismissed pendent state and city human-rights claims after dismissing federal claims | Fowlkes: at least one federal claim survives so supplemental jurisdiction should be reconsidered | District Court: declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once federal claims dismissed | Court: Vacated dismissal of pendent claims; remand for the district court to reassess exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in light of federal claims that survive |
Key Cases Cited
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (1982) (EEOC charge filing is not jurisdictional and is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling)
- Francis v. City of New York, 235 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 2000) (exhaustion is a precondition, not jurisdictional)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (union duty of fair representation standard)
- Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n Local No. 6, 493 U.S. 67 (1989) (duty of fair representation applies in hiring-hall context)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: plausible claim required)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (courts cannot create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements)
- Clayton v. Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., 451 U.S. 679 (1981) (courts have discretion to require or excuse intra-union exhaustion)
- Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (1991) (union breaches duty when actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith)