Rosemary Garity v. Apwu National Labor Org., 655 F. App'x 523

Plaintiff Rosemary Garity, a USPS clerk, sued her union (APWU) asserting ADA hostile-work-environment and other federal claims, plus Nevada torts (negligent retention and IIED). District court dismissed with prejudice; Garity appealed.
Garity alleged union officials refused/withdrew grievances, wrote adverse statements to management, impeded investigations, colluded with management to fire her, scheduled punitive workweeks, and cut off her speech at a union meeting.
Garity sought to characterize the union’s conduct as disability-based hostile work environment under the ADA and to state related state-law torts arising from the same facts.
The court assumed, without deciding, that an ADA hostile-work-environment claim could be analyzed like a Title VII claim, then applied the demanding Faragher standard.
The district court dismissed all federal and state claims; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding Garity failed to plead the severe facts needed for hostile environment or IIED, negligent-retention was inapplicable because the alleged actors were elected officials (not employees) and possibly preempted, and §§ 1985/1986 claims were deficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADA hostile work environment	Garity alleged pervasive disability-based mistreatment by APWU officials	APWU argued facts do not meet the demanding hostile-environment standard and conduct was not disability-motivated	Dismissed — allegations insufficient under Faragher; not objectively hostile or tied to disability
IIED under Nevada law	Union’s conduct caused severe emotional distress and was extreme/outrageous	APWU argued conduct was not atrocious or outside bounds of decency; merely inconsiderate or administrative	Dismissed — conduct alleged not extreme or outrageous; IIED not a catchall for discrimination claims
Negligent retention (Nevada)	Union negligently retained harmful officials	APWU argued alleged actors were elected union leaders, not employees; no employer-employee duty; claim may be preempted by §301 LMRA	Dismissed — no employer-employee relationship for negligent-retention theory; preemption alternative noted
42 U.S.C. §§ 1985/1986	Garity suggested conspiracy and denial of due process/other rights	APWU argued §1985 cannot redress ADA/Title VII violations and APWU is not a state actor for First Amendment due-process claims	Dismissed — §1985/§1986 claims fail; §1986 depends on §1985; private union not a state actor for asserted First Amendment violation

Brown v. City of Tucson, 336 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir.) (discussing viability of ADA hostile-work-environment claims)
Walsh v. Nevada Dept. of Human Resources, 471 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir.) (applying Title VII framework to ADA hostile-environment analysis)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (Sup. Ct.) (objective hostile-work-environment standard)
Star v. Rabello, 625 P.2d 90 (Nev. 1981) (elements of IIED under Nevada law)
Maduike v. Agency Rent-A-Car, 953 P.2d 24 (Nev. 1998) (defining extreme and outrageous conduct)
Hall v. SSF, Inc., 930 P.2d 94 (Nev. 1996) (employer duty for hiring/training/supervision)
Rockwell v. Sun Harbor Budget Suites, 925 P.2d 1175 (Nev. 1996) (negligent-hiring/supervision limited to actual employees)
Great American Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366 (Sup. Ct.) (§1985 cannot be used to redress Title VII/anti-discrimination claims)
Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621 (9th Cir.) (§1986 claim requires valid §1985 claim)
Otto v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 754 (9th Cir.) (separately remediable claims requirement)
Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (Sup. Ct.) (private parties are not state actors in many contexts)
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (state action doctrine principles)
Cook v. Lindsay Olive Growers, 911 F.2d 233 (9th Cir.) (§301 LMRA preemption of state claims dependent on collective-bargaining agreement)