Hunt v. Sunrise Operations LLC

Background

Andrew Hunt, who served as chief engineer for an old steamship, sued Sunrise Operations LLC, The Pasha Group, and MEBA. He alleged that the defendants refused to consider accommodating his Orthodox Christian beliefs against receiving a COVID-19 vaccine and terminated him as a result. His claims arose under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Hunt’s second amended complaint asserted seven claims: Title VII religious discrimination based on disparate treatment; Title VII failure to accommodate; Title VII retaliation; Title VII religious coercion or harassment; California religious discrimination based on disparate treatment; California failure to accommodate; and California retaliation. The complaint brought the first, second, fifth, and sixth claims against all defendants. The third, fourth, and seventh claims were brought against the corporate defendants only. MEBA moved to dismiss the claims against it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim for relief.

Discussion

MEBA argued that failure-to-accommodate claims could be brought only against an employer, not a union. It also argued that Hunt had not alleged facts showing that MEBA directly discriminated against him, declined to pursue his grievances, or treated him differently from other union members.

Hunt clarified that his theory was not based on a failure to represent him. Instead, he alleged that MEBA had acquiesced in or joined the employers’ discriminatory practices. He relied on 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(c)(3), which prohibits a labor organization from causing or attempting to cause an employer to discriminate. The court rejected MEBA’s argument that a union could never be liable for a failure-to-accommodate claim when the union allegedly joined in or acquiesced in the employer’s unlawful discrimination.

The court nevertheless found that the second amended complaint did not give MEBA fair notice of the claims against it. The complaint repeatedly referred generally to “defendant,” “defendants,” or “defendants and MEBA,” without identifying which defendant allegedly took which action. Because Hunt’s theory depended on MEBA’s joint action with an employer, the court held that Hunt needed to identify how MEBA allegedly joined in or acquiesced in the challenged conduct.

The court also found that the complaint and Hunt’s opposition brief presented different accounts of whether MEBA filed grievances on his behalf. The complaint alleged that MEBA accepted and processed grievances, while Hunt’s opposition relied on exhibits that he said showed MEBA did not file them. The court declined to take judicial notice of those exhibits or convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. It instructed Hunt to include any new facts he wanted the court to consider in the amended complaint itself.

Disposition

The court granted MEBA’s motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. Hunt’s third amended complaint was due no later than October 30, 2024. The order states that if Hunt failed to file it by that deadline, the claims against MEBA would be dismissed with prejudice. The case would then proceed against Sunrise Operations and The Pasha Group based on the allegations in the second amended complaint. Judge Susan Illston signed the order.