Green v. American Federation of Teachers
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1326
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Robert Green, a Black teacher, was fired by Aurora East School District 131 in 2010 and sought union help; the union refused to pursue a grievance or Tenure Act litigation.
- Green sued the district under the Illinois Teacher Tenure Act on his own, prevailed, and was reinstated.
- Green then sued his union in federal court under Title VII, alleging racial discrimination (§ 2000e-2(c)) and retaliation (§ 2000e-3(a)) because the union refused to represent him and had indicated it would not support him after prior litigation with the union.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the union, reasoning that a Title VII claim against a union requires proof that the union violated an external statutory or contractual duty (e.g., duty of fair representation), and found Green’s evidence conclusory.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding Title VII claims against labor organizations do not depend on showing a breach of a separate statute or contract and remanded for discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Title VII claim against a labor organization requires proof of a separate statutory or contractual duty (e.g., duty of fair representation) | Green: No—Title VII prohibits unions from discriminating or retaliating independent of any external duty | Union: Yes—Green must show breach of a statutory or contractual duty before Title VII relief against a union is available | Court: Rejected union’s requirement; Title VII claims against unions do not depend on a separate duty or contract |
| Whether Greenslade/Vaca-derived elements (show breach of CBA + breach of DFR + animus) govern Title VII suits against unions | Green: Title VII framework (e.g., McDonnell Douglas) controls; no extra elements tying claim to contract | Union: Relies on Greenslade language requiring hybrid/DFR elements | Court: Withdraws and disclaims Greenslade language conflating hybrid § 301/DFR claims with Title VII; McDonnell Douglas framework governs Title VII claims |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed before discovery and labeled Green’s affidavits conclusory/self-serving | Green: Evidence and affidavits should be tested after discovery; should not be summarily discredited | Union: Adequate basis for summary judgment due to lack of prima facie showing under district court’s framework | Court: Vacated summary judgment; remanded and instructed district court to allow discovery and not to prematurely reject affidavits as conclusory |
Key Cases Cited
- Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (early federal civil-rights enforcement against segregation)
- Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964) (Congress’s power to prohibit race discrimination in private commerce)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (hybrid § 301 breach-of-contract/duty-of-fair-representation framework)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (formulation of Title VII prima facie framework)
- Greenslade v. Chicago Sun-Times, Inc., 112 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 1997) (language conflating hybrid DFR elements with Title VII—withdrawn here)
- Bugg v. Allied Industrial Workers, Local 507, 674 F.2d 595 (7th Cir. 1982) (source of hybrid-claim language criticized)
- Taylor v. Armco Steel Corp., 429 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1970) (cases directing unions to ignore discriminatory statutes/contracts)
- United States v. Electrical Workers, 428 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1970) (similar enforcement against discriminatory labor practices)
- United States v. Sheet Metal Workers, 416 F.2d 123 (8th Cir. 1969) (same)
- Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2003) (affidavit/evidence evaluation on summary judgment)
- Hill v. Tangherlini, 724 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2013) (same)