Phillips v. UAW International, 854 F.3d 323

Background

Plaintiff Tanganeka L. Phillips, an African‑American who worked at MGM Grand Detroit (1999–2015), served as chairperson of UAW Local 7777 and interacted with UAW International representatives Brian Johnson and Dave Kagels.
Phillips alleged that between 2012–2014 Johnson and Kagels made racially derogatory comments, treated Black members more harshly, and on one occasion segregated grievance files by race and indicated he would withdraw grievances of Black members.
Phillips filed Title VII and Michigan Elliott‑Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) claims against UAW International, Johnson, and Kagels; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
On appeal the Sixth Circuit considered (but ultimately did not decide) whether a union may be liable under Title VII for a hostile work environment; the EEOC filed an amicus brief supporting Phillips.
The panel affirmed summary judgment on the ground that Phillips failed to show harassment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment; the ELCRA claim failed under the same analysis.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2000e‑2(c) (unions) covers hostile work environment claims	Title VII prohibits unions from creating racially hostile environments and §2000e‑2(c) liability should include such claims	Union subsection omits the "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" language that underlies hostile environment doctrine, so unions aren’t liable qua unions	Not decided on the merits — court declined to reach question because plaintiff failed to establish a hostile environment
Whether Phillips established a Title VII hostile work environment	Incidents (racial comments, segregating grievances, threats to fire Black reps) were sufficiently severe/pervasive to create an abusive environment	Conduct was isolated/offensive but not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment conditions	Court held evidence insufficient as a matter of law; summary judgment affirmed for defendants
Whether UAW International was Phillips’s employer (agency question)	Phillips argued union acted as her employer so employer liability under §2000e‑2(a) applies	Defendants disputed that UAW International was Phillips’s employer	Court did not resolve the agency/employer issue because it disposed of the case on the hostile‑environment merits
Motion for reconsideration denial	Phillips sought reconsideration without developing new argument/evidence	Defendants opposed; court considered arguments waived if conclusory	Court affirmed denial; appellate court treated conclusory appellate arguments as waived

Key Cases Cited

Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (hostile work environment recognized under Title VII)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (standards for severe or pervasive harassment)
Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (2013) (scope of employer liability and hostile environment origins)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (totality of circumstances test for hostile environment)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (limitations to Title VII to avoid general civility code)
Dowd v. United Steelworkers of Am., 253 F.3d 1093 (8th Cir. 2001) (union liability for hostile environment discussed)
Williams v. CSX Transp. Co., 643 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2011) (examples of nonactionable racist remarks as not pervasive/severe)
Smith v. Rock‑Tenn Servs., 813 F.3d 298 (6th Cir. 2016) (characterizing severity/pervasiveness as often a fact question)
Quinto v. Cross & Peters Co., 451 Mich. 358 (1996) (Michigan standard for hostile work environment analogous to Title VII)