Butcher v. AFSCME Council 5

Background

Marian V. Butcher, proceeding without a lawyer, sued AFSCME Council 5 and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, which the opinion calls AFSCME International. She alleged race and sex discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

Butcher alleged that she worked for Council 5 beginning in June 2019 and witnessed racist, sexist, bullying, and intimidating conduct. She also alleged that she spoke with coworkers and Executive Board members about alleged discrimination and sexual harassment, after which Council 5 investigated her and terminated her. She filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge against Council 5, not AFSCME International. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission later issued a notice giving her the right to sue.

AFSCME International moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Council 5 did not join the motion. Butcher received extensions of time to respond but did not file a response, so the court decided the motion based on the written submissions without a hearing.

Procedural deficiencies

The court held that Butcher failed to exhaust the required administrative process for her Title VII claims against AFSCME International. She had filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge against Council 5, but not against AFSCME International, and the charge and right-to-sue notice identified Council 5 only.

The court considered an exception that can apply when the named and unnamed parties have a “substantial identity,” including when they operate as a single employer. It found that Butcher had not alleged facts showing that AFSCME International and Council 5 had sufficiently interrelated operations, common management, or centralized control over labor relations. The court also noted that the complaint alleged Council 5 employed and fired Butcher without AFSCME International’s involvement. Because the 300-day period for filing a charge had expired, the court dismissed the Title VII claims against AFSCME International with prejudice.

The court separately ruled that the Minnesota Human Rights Act claims against AFSCME International were filed too late. The statute generally required filing within one year after the alleged discriminatory practice, while the alleged conduct occurred in 2019 and Butcher filed this action in 2024. The court found that she had not alleged facts supporting an exception to the time limit and dismissed those claims with prejudice.

Failure to state a claim

The court also ruled that, even if the procedural requirements had been satisfied, Butcher had not stated a claim against AFSCME International. According to the complaint, Council 5—not AFSCME International—was Butcher’s employer and carried out the alleged discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation.

The court explained that AFSCME International could potentially be liable if it acted as the employer, caused or attempted to cause an employer to discriminate, actively supported or instigated the alleged discrimination, or was responsible under agency principles. Butcher alleged that AFSCME International should have done more to address Council 5’s conduct and that it effectively supported the conduct by re-employing Westmoreland after his resignation from Council 5. The court found these allegations insufficient. It characterized the allegations as passive inaction rather than active support and noted that AFSCME International had investigated alleged discrimination at Council 5. It also found that Butcher had not alleged enough facts to show that Council 5 acted as AFSCME International’s agent.

Disposition

The court granted AFSCME International’s motion to dismiss and dismissed with prejudice all claims against AFSCME International. The order did not decide the claims against Council 5.