Wade v. Ports America Management Corp.
218 Cal. App. 4th 648
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Calvin Wade, African-American, worked as a steady vessel planner for Marine Terminals Corporation (MTC) and was a member of Local 63 of the ILWU under the PCCCD collective bargaining agreement.
- PCCCD Section 13.1 prohibits discrimination based on race and related protections; Section 13.2 requires discrimination/harassment grievances to be processed via binding arbitration.
- Wade was laid off September 5, 2008; management stated the action was due to Wade’s poor work performance despite Wade’s seniority over some retained planners.
- Wade’s grievance asserted violation of seniority and Section 13.1 (discrimination/retaliation) and was arbitrated in early 2009; the arbitrator’s February 17, 2009 decision found the PCCCD governs and allowed the layoff, and found no compelling evidence of Section 13.1 violation.
- Wade later filed a state court action (August 25, 2010) alleging retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy (FEHA-related) based on race; the superior court granted summary judgment on res judicata grounds because the arbitration addressed the same termination and potential racial discrimination issues.
- The court held Wade’s common law claim barred because the arbitration addressed the same primary right and included the racial discrimination claim as framed in the grievance; Wade appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does labor arbitration preclude Wade's common law wrongful termination claim? | Wade argues arbitration under FEHA-related theory cannot bar nonstatutory claims. | MTC argues res judicata applies because same primary right and same termination issue were litigated in arbitration. | Yes; res judicata bars the common law claim as the arbitration addressed the same primary right and issue. |
| Did the arbitration address Wade's racial discrimination claim? | The arbitration involved union activity and seniority, not race per se. | Arbitration record encompassed Wade’s racial discrimination claim as part of ‘unfair discriminatory practices against minority employees’ and evidence of prior racial grievances. | Arbitration encompassed Wade’s racial discrimination claim; the arbitrator resolved that Section 13.1 was not violated. |
| Is Wade barred from pursuing the public policy wrongful termination claim due to identity of the cause of action? | The causes differ: common law wrongful termination vs FEHA-based claims. | The sole injury was Wade’s termination; multiple theories were presented within one arbitration; therefore the claims are the same primary right. | Yes; the cause of action is the same primary right, so res judicata bars the subsequent suit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner-Denver Co. v. has a high bar for preclusion, 415 U.S. 36 (1974) (labor arbitration has no preclusive effect on Title VII claims when statutory remedies exist)
- Camargo v. California Portland Cement Co., 86 Cal.App.4th 995 (2001) (FEHA claims require explicit arbitration of FEHA in CBA and full arbitration procedures for preclusion)
- Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888 (2002) (primary right theory governs res judicata and preclusion of subsequent actions)
- Sartor v. Superior Court, 136 Cal.App.3d 322 (1982) (collateral estoppel principles in arbitration context guidance)
- Thibodeau v. Crum, 4 Cal.App.4th 749 (1992) (scope of arbitration and relevant issues; relatedness to subject matter)
- Sutphin v. Speik, 15 Cal.2d 195 (1940) (prior judgment rule on matters raised or litigable)
- Kelly v. Vons Companies, Inc., 67 Cal.App.4th 1329 (1998) (labor arbitration preclusion of common law claims that arise from the same conduct)
- Castillo v. City of Los Angeles, 92 Cal.App.4th 477 (2001) (collateral estoppel when issues were raised or could have been raised)