Rosemary Garity v. Apwu National Labor Org.
828 F.3d 848
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Garity, a disabled USPS clerk and former APWU shop steward in Pahrump, Nevada, alleges the local union refused to process her grievances and sided with management, leading to suspension and eventual termination.
- She filed two pro se federal complaints: Complaint One (breach of the union’s duty of fair representation / contract claims) and Complaint Two (ADA discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, hostile work environment, and state tort claims).
- Two district judges kept the actions separate. Judge Dawson dismissed Complaint One for failure to state a duty-of-fair-representation breach; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
- Judge Pro initially allowed Garity’s ADA claims to proceed but later dismissed Complaint Two in full, holding that ADA claims against a union require proof of a union breach of the duty of fair representation and were thus precluded by the prior adverse ruling (issue preclusion).
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit reviewed both claim-preclusion and issue-preclusion contentions and held Complaint Two was not barred by claim preclusion and that ADA discrimination/retaliation claims do not require proof of a union’s breach of the duty of fair representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim preclusion (res judicata) — whether Complaint Two is barred because related to Complaint One | Garity: Two suits were kept separate by district courts; she lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate ADA claims in Complaint One | APWU: Both complaints arise from same nucleus of facts; Garity should have joined claims in one action | Court: Not barred — two judges had expressly kept suits separate; full and fair opportunity lacking, so claim preclusion does not apply |
| Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) — whether prior finding that union did not breach duty of fair representation bars ADA claims | Garity: ADA prima facie case does not require proof of breach of the duty of fair representation | APWU: Beck and other authority require showing breach as an element of a discrimination claim against a union; prior dismissal is preclusive | Court: Not barred — an ADA (or Title VII–style) prima facie discrimination claim against a union does not require proof of a breach of the duty of fair representation |
| Elements of a discrimination claim against a union — whether courts may add a breach-of-contract element to ADA/Title VII prima facie framework | Garity: Adding a contract-breach element is inconsistent with statute and precedent; Green persuasive | APWU: Union duty/breach is relevant and was relied on in some precedents (e.g., Beck) | Court: Rejects importing a separate duty-of-fair-representation element into ADA/Title VII prima facie framework; follows Green and McDonnell Douglas approach |
Key Cases Cited
- Beck v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 99, 506 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2007) (analyzed Title VII claim and separate duty-of-fair-representation claim; did not adopt a breach element for the prima facie Title VII claim)
- Green v. Am. Fed. of Teachers/Ill. Fed. of Teachers Local 604, 740 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2014) (holds Title VII claims against unions do not require proof of a contract or statutory breach; rejects Bugg framework)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for prima facie discrimination claims)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1967) (defines duty of fair representation standard for unions)
- Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, 424 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1976) (discusses union’s duty and broad authority in labor relations)