Wesley v. General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Local 745
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20177
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Wesley, an African-American former employee of Yellow Transportation, was a Local 745 member.
- In 2005, Wesley was terminated for overstaying his break period while a pornographic video played in the break room.
- Local 745 pursued a grievance on Wesley’s behalf; Taylor represented him at a grievance hearing on April 19, 2005.
- The hearing committee denied the grievance; Wesley could speak, but no further avenues for appeal existed.
- Wesley alleged § 1981 discrimination, claiming Taylor failed to argue racial discrimination in the termination.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Local 745 and Taylor, and Wesley appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1981 claims can be brought against a union for discriminatory grievance handling | Wesley asserts union discrimination in handling his grievances. | Defendants argue no viable § 1981 claim against a union absent adverse discrimination by the union. | No viable § 1981 claim against the union. |
| Whether Wesley faced an adverse union action during the grievance process | Taylor failed to argue race-based grounds, constituting adverse action. | Wesley was represented and allowed to speak; no adverse union action shown. | No adverse union action established. |
| Whether Wesley was treated less favorably than nonminority employees in union proceedings | Disparate treatment in union handling due to race. | Taylor treated Wesley no differently than other employees; no comparators shown. | No evidence of disparate treatment. |
| Whether Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co. supports relief for a union’s alleged race-based grievance handling | Goodman prohibits unions from refusing to file race-based grievances. | Facts here differ; no policy of ignoring race-related grievances evidenced. | Goodman does not support relief; no policy or practice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Felton v. Polles, 315 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2002) (establishes prima facie framework for § 1981 claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1989) (superseded on other grounds; adoption of McDonnell Douglas framework for § 1981)
- Lauderdale v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, Inst. Div., 512 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 2007) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework in § 1981 context)
- Stalcup v. Commc’n Workers of Am., 44 F. App’x 654 (5th Cir. 2002) (adapts McDonnell Douglas framework to union grievance claims)
- Alexander v. Local 496, Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., 177 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (relevant to disability discrimination against unions context)
- Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656 (U.S. 1987) (unions cannot refuse to file grievances; facts distinguished in § 1981 claim)
- Allensworth v. Gen. Motors Corp., 945 F.2d 174 (7th Cir. 1991) (professed satisfaction with union representation can undermine discrimination claim)