Williams v. Omnisource Corporation
3:14-cv-00718
N.D. OhioJan 9, 2018Background
- James G. Williams, a Teamsters Local 20 member employed as a maintenance mechanic at OmniSource, alleged repeated harassment by supervisor David Dawson in 2013 (e.g., following, getting ‘‘in his ear,’’ tapping/grabbing while Williams worked with a torch).
- September 17, 2013: a confrontation in which Williams says he was cornered and later hit a railing with a tool; he was suspended, had a panic attack, and was hospitalized.
- HR investigated, interviewed witnesses, and on September 26, OmniSource offered Williams resignation or termination; after an agitated conference call and threatening statements he allegedly made to HR, OmniSource and Dawson filed a police report and obtained a temporary protection order.
- Williams sued for assault/battery; negligent hiring/retention/supervision; ADA/Ohio disability discrimination (perceived disability); negligent/intentional infliction of emotional distress; defamation; invasion of privacy; breach of CBA (§301) against OmniSource; and breach of duty of fair representation against Local 20.
- OmniSource and Local 20 moved for summary judgment; the court granted summary judgment to all defendants and closed the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assault & battery (state law) | Dawson’s touching, following, grabbing and startling Williams constituted offensive, willful contact. | Touching was limited (taps to shoulder, peripheral contact) and not willful/harmful to meet assault/battery. | Summary judgment for defendants; taps/brief contact insufficient as assault/battery. |
| Negligent hiring/retention/supervision | OmniSource failed to prevent/supervise Dawson’s harassment. | Dawson’s conduct was at most annoying/unprofessional; OmniSource lacked notice of a propensity warranting liability. | Summary judgment for defendants; plaintiff failed to show employee incompetence or employer knowledge. |
| ADA / Ohio perceived-disability discrimination | OmniSource regarded Williams as mentally disabled after his hospitalization and terminated him for being menacing. | Employer acted for legitimate safety/discipline reasons; timing and Williams’ conduct show no ‘‘regarded as’’ protected disability. | Summary judgment for defendants; plaintiff failed to establish prima facie perceived-disability claim. |
| IIED / negligent infliction of emotional distress | Harassment, escort off premises, alleged false police report and termination caused severe emotional harm. | Conduct was not extreme/outrageous; not assaultive; termination and discipline do not meet high IIED standard. | Summary judgment for defendants; conduct not sufficiently outrageous or causative. |
| Defamation / invasion of privacy (false light) | Police report and related statements falsely portrayed Williams as menacing and harmed his reputation. | Statements were privileged (business/ safety communication to police); plaintiff cannot show actual malice or objective falsity; police reports not necessarily publicized to the public at large. | Summary judgment for defendants; qualified privilege applies and plaintiff failed to show actual malice or requisite publicity/ falsity. |
| Hybrid §301 / breach of CBA | OmniSource violated the CBA by terminating Williams without proper hearing/for cause. | Williams failed to exhaust the CBA grievance procedure; employer policies permit discipline/termination for cause. | Summary judgment for OmniSource; grievance process was mandatory and was not pursued. |
| Duty of fair representation (Local 20) | Union refused or failed to assist Williams in filing/processing a grievance. | Union scheduled a meeting, informed plaintiff of deadlines; missed meeting alone is not arbitrary, nor was futility shown. | Summary judgment for Local 20; plaintiff failed to show union conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2008) (summary judgment standard and evidence viewed in nonmovant’s favor)
- Rose v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 766 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment principles and drawing inferences for nonmovant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)
- Love v. City of Port Clinton, 37 Ohio St.3d 98 (Ohio 1988) (definition of offensive contact in assault/battery context)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1983) (hybrid §301/duty-of-fair-representation claims are interdependent)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1967) (union’s duty to represent members without hostility or discrimination)
- Air Line Pilots Ass’n Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (U.S. 1991) (arbitrariness standard for union bad-faith conduct)
- Kerans v. Porter Paint Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 486 (Ohio 1991) (example of sexual harassment as per se incompetence for negligent hiring/retention analysis)