Price v. UNION LOCAL 25
787 F. Supp. 2d 63
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiff Kerry Shea Price, pro se, sues UNITE HERE Local 25 and two union officers for mishandling his grievance after termination from the Jefferson Hotel.
- Price was hired July 20, 2009; in October 2009 an incident involving a meal distribution led to harassment and a security intervention; a November 2009 meeting with HR followed.
- Price sought representation from his Shop Steward at the grievance meeting but was told that would not happen, and he was terminated with no written/oral explanation.
- Price filed a grievance with Local 25, alleging lack of copies, lack of information about the investigation, no participation by Price, and no written rationale for not pursuing the grievance.
- Price sought back pay, future earnings, and pro se fees; the case was removed to federal court as potentially a claim under the federal duty of fair representation (DFR) under LMRA §301.
- The court construes the complaint as asserting a DFR claim against Boardman and Martin, but dismisses those claims as individual officers cannot be sued for money damages under §301.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DFR claims may be maintained against individual union officers | Price argues Boardman and Martin breached DFR. | Officers cannot be liable for DFR damages; only the union may be liable. | DFR claims against individual officers dismissed |
| Whether § 1983 claims against private actors survive | Price asserts procedural due process violations by failure to provide a shop steward and impartial discharge meeting. | § 1983 requires state action; private hotel employees are not state actors. | Section 1983 claims against private actors dismissed |
| Whether plaintiff can maintain federal DFR claims against the union as a proper defendant | Union mishandled the grievance in bad faith and harmed Price. | DFR is a duty of fair representation owed by the union to its members, not individual officers. | Court recognizes DFR exists against the union, but not against individual officers |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (DFR arises from union's status as exclusive bargaining representative)
- DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983) (DFR implied under NLRA framework)
- Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Reis, 451 U.S. 401 (1981) (statutory protections shielding individuals from damages in §301 contexts)
- Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U.S. 238 (1962) (only the union is to respond for union wrongs; individuals not liable)
- Carino v. Stefan, 376 F.3d 156 (2004) (damages may not be brought against individual union officers)
- McMickle v. Aragon, 736 F. Supp. 2d 129 (2010) (DFR claims for damages may be brought only against the union)
- Chandler v. W.E. Welch & Assocs., Inc., 533 F. Supp. 2d 94 (2008) (state action requirement for § 1983 claims in the DC district court context)
- Harris v. Ladner, 127 F.3d 1121 (1997) (private institution employment does not implicate constitutional due process)