787 F.3d 389
7th Cir.2015Background
- Xiong, a long‑time Dane County social worker and Union member, was accused of multiple work rule violations and failed a required certification test in May 2012.
- Fischer (Xiong’s supervisor) sent a May 22 letter identifying the allegations and scheduled a pre‑disciplinary meeting for May 24; Xiong learned of the letter by phone May 23 and received the written letter hours before the meeting.
- At the May 24 meeting (with Union representation), Xiong admitted the alleged misconduct; days later he received a termination letter signed by Fischer.
- The County CBA provides a four‑step grievance process (Steps 1–3 internal, Step 4 arbitration subject to a unit vote); the Union bypassed Steps 1–2 and proceeded to Step 3, then declined arbitration.
- Xiong sued the Union (duty of fair representation), the County (breach of CBA / civil service ordinance), and Fischer (constitutional claims); the district court granted summary judgment for defendants and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Union breach its duty of fair representation by bypassing Steps 1–2? | Bypass was arbitrary and deprived Xiong of process. | The Union reasonably skipped Steps 1–2 because the same decisionmakers had already decided termination. | No breach — skipping Steps 1–2 was within a wide range of reasonableness. |
| Did Union breach duty by refusing to take grievance to arbitration? | Union unreasonably refused arbitration of a meritorious grievance. | Union investigated, represented Xiong, knew of serious misconduct and cert failure, and reasonably declined arbitration. | No breach — decision not to arbitrate was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. |
| Did termination violate Dane County Civil Service Ordinance because Fischer (not appointing authority) issued notice? | Fischer exceeded authority; termination procedure violated ordinance. | Ordinance does not require appointing authority to personally sign or deliver notice; record shows higher‑level approval and Green was copied. | No violation — insufficient evidence that appointing authority did not authorize termination. |
| Do § 1983 due process claims succeed (state action / inadequate process)? | Union acted with County to deny arbitration; Fischer/County deprived Xiong of procedural due process. | Union is private (no state action); County/Fischer provided constitutionally adequate pre‑ and post‑termination process. | No § 1983 relief — Union not shown to act under color of state law; Xiong received adequate notice/hearing; bypassing Steps 1–2 did not deny constitutional process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (union duty of fair representation standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (pre‑termination due process requirements)
- Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922 (state action / fair attribution test)
- Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chicago Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811 (unions typically private actors for § 1983)
- Mahnke v. Wis. Emp’t Relations Comm., 225 N.W.2d 617 (Wisconsin adoption of federal duty of fair representation analysis)