Johnson v. East Baton Rouge Federation of Teachers
706 F. App'x 169
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Johnson worked as a paraprofessional for East Baton Rouge Parish School System beginning in 2008 and was terminated in 2015 after reporting missing IEP files.
- At a meeting about termination, the Union discussed transfer as an alternative but the School System proceeded to terminate Johnson.
- Johnson filed a Title VII charge with the EEOC alleging retaliation and received a right-to-sue notice; she then sued the Union pro se in federal district court asserting "failure to provide union representation" and "fraud."
- The Union moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations and that it was not the exclusive bargaining representative; Johnson did not respond to the motion.
- The district court granted the motion and entered dismissal without prejudice, warning it would convert to dismissal with prejudice if no response was filed; Johnson did not respond and the dismissal was converted to with prejudice.
- Johnson raised additional factual allegations and arguments for the first time in her notice of appeal; the Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo but considered new arguments only for plain error and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson pleaded a breach of the duty of fair representation | Johnson alleged the Union failed to provide representation and sought to prevent whistleblower protection | Union argued complaint was conclusory, incomprehensible, and insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal; also not exclusive bargaining agent | Dismissal affirmed: bare allegations insufficient to plead arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad-faith conduct required for the claim |
| Whether Johnson pleaded fraud | Johnson alleged the Union "committed a fraud" without factual detail | Union argued fraud claim lacked particularized factual allegations as required | Dismissal affirmed: conclusory fraud allegation fails Rule 8 and Rule 9(b) standards |
| Whether new allegations on appeal warrant reversal or relief | Johnson supplied more facts and arguments in her notice of appeal | Union noted procedural defects and maintained the district court ruling was correct | Affirmed: new material reviewed only for plain error and did not show plain error affecting substantial rights or judicial integrity; dismissal conversion proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Gines v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 699 F.3d 812 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Tilmon v. Prator, 368 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 2004) (plain-error review for issues raised first on appeal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (two-step Iqbal analysis for pleading adequacy)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (union duty of fair representation principles)
- Landry v. The Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co., 880 F.2d 846 (5th Cir. 1989) (arbitrary/discriminatory/bad faith standard in DFR claims)
- Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120 (5th Cir. 1997) (four-part plain-error test)
- Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2002) (pro se complaints must still satisfy Rule 8)