United Steel Workers Local 12-369 v. United Steel Workers International
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18593
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Stephanie Green, the first female and African-American president of USW Local 12-369 (elected 2005, reelected 2009), sued the International Union, HAMTC, and individuals alleging race- and gender-based discrimination and retaliation for protected union speech under the LMRDA, Title VII, § 1981, LMRA § 301, and state law. The district court dismissed her claims under LMRDA § 609 but tried the remaining claims. After a 10-day bench trial, the court found for defendants; Green appealed.
- The Local represented members across WA, OR, and HI; Hanford members are represented at the bargaining table by HAMTC (Molnaa president). The International became the Local’s parent in April 2005.
- Key contested events: a 2005 steward-election dispute; decertification of Spokane units (2006–07) where Green was excluded from meetings; a signature-authority dispute with HAMTC that was resolved after International intervention; and persistent intra‑Local factional strife.
- Two internal investigations were central: the Maki commission (initially cleared Green in May 2007, then issued an amended report in August 2007 recommending an administratorship) and the later Kins commission (recommended administratorship but an International appeal panel rejected it). The International imposed an emergency administratorship in Aug. 2007; a federal court enjoined and dissolved it for lack of a full hearing.
- At trial the district court found the contested actions (including the administratorship and commission activity) were motivated by factional conflict and legitimate governance concerns rather than race/gender animus or retaliation; on appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed and held § 609 does not protect officers for acts undertaken in their official capacities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does LMRDA § 609 protect union officers for discipline suffered in their official capacities? | Green: § 609 protects exercise of LMRDA rights and thus covers retaliatory discipline of an elected union officer. | Defendants: § 609 applies only to discipline affecting membership status, not officer actions; it does not reach official-capacity discipline. | Held: § 609 does not protect union officers from discipline directed at their official roles; dismissal affirmed. |
| Were the actions (commissions, administratorship, signature authority, exclusion from decertification talks) unlawful retaliation for protected speech under LMRDA §§ 101/102? | Green: Defendants retaliated against her because she exercised Title I free-speech/assembly rights and engaged in protected activity (EEOC complaints, governance changes). | Defendants: Actions responded to intra‑Local dysfunction, governance disputes, and legitimate concerns about representation; nondiscriminatory reasons supported actions. | Held: District court’s factual findings that actions were motivated by legitimate governance/factional concerns (not retaliation) were not clearly erroneous; judgment for defendants affirmed. |
| Can Green prevail under LMRA § 301 by showing the International/HAMTC interpreted their constitutions in bad faith? | Green: Officials acted in bad faith or contrary to union interests to remove/discipline her. | Defendants: Actions were consistent with union constitutions and taken to protect the Local’s functioning; no bad‑faith interpretation. | Held: Court credited non‑discriminatory explanations and testimony (e.g., Bonds) and found no bad‑faith contract interpretation. |
| Do Title VII, § 1981, and WLAD claims survive given the record? | Green: Defendants discriminated on race and sex in their actions against her. | Defendants: No intentional discrimination; adverse actions were due to factional disputes and legitimate concerns. | Held: District court’s adverse‑fact findings were plausible and supported; plaintiff failed to prove intentional discrimination; claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431 (1982) (§ 609 "discipline" targets actions affecting union membership status, limiting § 609 and § 102 reach)
- Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n v. Lynn, 488 U.S. 347 (1989) (distinguishes appointed vs. elected officers under § 102; elected officers may have Title I protection)
- Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n Local Union No. 6, 493 U.S. 67 (1989) (construes parallel language across LMRDA provisions and treats operative phrases consistently)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (standard for reviewing factual findings; appellate court must defer unless findings are clearly erroneous)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (explains the appellate standard for "illogical, implausible, or without support" in fact-findings)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)