Hernandez v. Riggle
2016 Ohio 8032
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Jose Hernandez and Eliel Rivera (separately filed, consolidated on appeal) alleged Bricklayers Local No. 8 and its representative Jerre Riggle denied them union membership because they are Hispanic, in violation of R.C. Chapter 4112.
- Complaints pleaded plaintiffs' national origin but used only the phrase they “made known [their] desire to join Local No. 8”; they did not allege they submitted membership applications, met membership qualifications, or were affirmatively rejected after applying.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The trial court granted the motion, concluding: (1) R.C. 4112.02(C)(1) does not permit individual liability of union representatives; and (2) the complaints failed to plead the elements of a discrimination claim with sufficient factual detail.
- Plaintiffs raised for the first time in opposition an aider-and-abettor claim under R.C. 4112.02(J) and a futility theory for not applying; the trial court did not accept those new theories and the court of appeals treats them as waived.
- On appeal the Seventh District reviewed de novo whether the complaints—construed within their four corners—alleged a prima facie discrimination claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework adapted to R.C. Chapter 4112.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a union representative can be held individually liable under R.C. 4112.02(C)(1) | Riggle acted within scope of authority; plaintiffs sued him as the representative | R.C. 4112.02(C)(1) creates liability for a "labor organization" not for individual representatives; definition of labor organization lacks employer-like "acting in interest" language | Not liable individually; claim against Riggle dismissed |
| Whether the complaints sufficiently pleaded a discrimination claim against Local No. 8 under Civ.R. 8/Civ.R. 12(B)(6) | Plaintiffs' notice-pleading suffices; they informed the union of their desire to join | Complaints lack allegations that plaintiffs applied, were qualified, or were rejected—mere conclusory statements insufficient | Complaint fails to state a claim; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether plaintiffs may raise an aider-and-abettor theory under R.C. 4112.02(J) | Raised in opposition brief as alternative theory | Not pleaded in complaint; cannot be asserted first in brief | Waived; court did not consider it |
| Whether plaintiffs may rely on futility to excuse failure to apply for membership | Plaintiffs argued applying would be futile (first raised on appeal) | Argument raised too late and was not pled below | Waived; not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes prima facie framework for disparate treatment claims)
- Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Comm. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n, 66 Ohio St.2d 192 (Ohio applies federal Title VII analysis to R.C. Chapter 4112 claims)
- Little Forest Med. Ctr. of Akron v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n, 61 Ohio St.3d 607 (same principle: federal precedents inform Ohio discrimination law)
- Genaro v. Central Transp., Inc., 84 Ohio St.3d 293 (discusses scope of definitions relevant to employer/union liability)