James Tate v. United Steel
21-30763
| 5th Cir. | May 31, 2022Background
- James C. Tate (African American) worked as a refinery production operator and was a USW member from 1994–2017.
- On Sept. 1, 2017 his employer offered termination or retirement; Tate elected retirement and immediately filed a grievance alleging race-based termination.
- The Union filed a grievance (Oct. 22, 2017); employer denied it in Aug. 2018 saying Tate retired. In July 2019 the Union declined to pursue arbitration.
- Tate sued the Union in March 2020 alleging breach of union obligations and Title VII discrimination (he did not sue the employer).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Union and later denied Tate relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (Tate claimed lack of notice of the summary-judgment motion).
- The Fifth Circuit, construing Tate’s pro se filings liberally, affirmed both the summary-judgment ruling and the denial of Rule 60(b) relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of many claims | Tate disputed outcomes but did not meaningfully challenge the court's timeliness rulings | Most claims fall outside controlling statutes of limitation | Court treated those claims as time-barred and did not reach merits |
| Title VII claim re: refusal to arbitrate | Union refused to arbitrate post-termination grievance due to race | Tate failed to identify similarly situated comparators showing disparate treatment involving Union arbitration | Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie disparate-treatment case; summary judgment for Union |
| Breach of USW Constitution (Civil Rights Committee; meetings) | Union failed to form committee and hold regular/member/board meetings | Record shows committee created and meetings scheduled; no constitutional provision requiring recruitment/attendance quotas | No contract breach shown; summary judgment for Union |
| Rule 60(b) — lack of notice of summary-judgment motion | Tate contends he was not served or given notice of the motion and attachments | Record does not support lack of notice; Tate did not identify additional arguments he would have made | District court did not abuse discretion denying Rule 60(b) relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Renfroe v. Parker, 974 F.3d 594 (5th Cir. 2020) (summary-judgment standard)
- Wesley v. Gen. Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Loc. 745, 660 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 2011) (requirement for similarly situated comparators)
- Lee v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009) ("nearly identical circumstances" comparator standard)
- Wooddell v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Loc. 71, 502 U.S. 93 (1991) (individual suits for breach of international union constitution)
- Webb v. Davis, 940 F.3d 892 (5th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) denials)