T. Flagg v. Int'l Union, Security, Police, Fire Professionals of America, Local 506
146 A.3d 300
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Flagg and Kelly were sergeants in Cheyney University Campus Police and members of the same PSSHE "meet and discuss" bargaining unit represented by SPFPA and Local 506 under a memorandum of understanding providing grievance/arbitration procedures.
- Flagg was terminated in 2010 after an incident with Kelly; the unions filed a grievance and an arbitrator reinstated Flagg but imposed a suspension; later the unions declined to pursue arbitration of Flagg's 2010 termination grievance.
- Flagg sued the unions for breach of the duty of fair representation and added Kelly, asserting (Count III) a §1983 claim alleging Kelly, acting under color of state law, violated his First Amendment rights and (Count IV) tortious interference with contractual relations against Kelly and the unions.
- Kelly moved for summary relief seeking dismissal of Count III (arguing he is not a "person" under §1983, is immune under the Eleventh Amendment, that no constitutional deprivation was alleged, and statute of limitations) and dismissal of Count IV based on statutory immunity for state employees acting within the scope of their duties.
- The court treated the motion under Pa.R.A.P. 1532(b) (summary-judgment standards), granted summary relief dismissing Count III, and denied summary relief as to Count IV, directing Kelly to answer Count IV.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kelly is a "person" under §1983 / whether suit is personal v. official capacity | Flagg alleges Kelly is sued in his personal capacity for misuse of his position to influence the union to withdraw the grievance | Kelly contends he was sued in his official capacity (thus not a "person" under §1983) | Court found pleading and record suggest personal-capacity suit; summary relief on this ground denied |
| Whether Eleventh Amendment bars the §1983 claim | Flagg: suit is against Kelly personally, so Eleventh Amendment doesn't apply | Kelly: Eleventh Amendment shields him from suit | Because the complaint indicates a personal-capacity claim, Eleventh Amendment defense not resolved; summary relief denied on this ground |
| Whether Flagg alleged deprivation of a constitutional right under §1983 (First Amendment) | Flagg contends denial of arbitration/union processing infringes his First Amendment petition/union activity rights | Kelly argues no constitutional right to compel a union to take a grievance to arbitration; remedy is DFR claim against the union | Court held arbitration/processing under a CBA is contractual and an employee has no First Amendment right to force arbitration; §1983 claim fails and Count III dismissed |
| Whether Kelly is immune from tortious-interference claim under sovereign/official-immunity (1 Pa.C.S. §2310) | Flagg asserts Kelly's conduct (letter to union) was outside the scope of employment so immunity doesn't apply | Kelly argues he was a state employee acting within scope and is immune under §2310/sovereign immunity | Court concluded it was unclear whether sending the letter was within scope of employment; immunity not established as a matter of law and summary relief denied as to Count IV |
Key Cases Cited
- Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (state and officials sued in official capacity are not "persons" under §1983)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against state officials in their individual capacities)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (employees generally cannot compel arbitration; union has discretion to settle grievances; duty of fair representation is remedy for union misconduct)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (distinction between official-capacity and personal-capacity suits)
- Connor v. Reinhard, 847 F.2d 384 (causation for §1983 liability can include setting in motion events a defendant knew would lead to deprivation)
- Palmer v. Bartosh, 959 A.2d 508 (standards for §1983 claims in Pennsylvania appellate context)
- Myers v. Commonwealth, 128 A.3d 846 (summary-relief standard under Pa.R.A.P. 1532(b) follows summary-judgment principles)
- Northwestern Youth Services, Inc. v. Department of Public Welfare, 1 A.3d 988 (summary-relief/summary-judgment standard)