Marshall v. Alameda Contra Costa Transit District

Background

Danny Marshall alleged that AC Transit removed him from his Mentor Coordinator position and replaced him with a less qualified, less senior female colleague. He alleged that the demotion violated the collective bargaining agreement between AC Transit and ATU Local 192. His lawsuit asserted claims including discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, failure to prevent workplace discrimination, breach of the union’s duty of fair representation, breach of contract, and claims under federal civil-rights law and California’s Public Utilities Code.

In an earlier order, the Court granted in part and denied in part ATU Local 192’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Marshall’s fair-representation claim without leave to amend and dismissed his contract claim with leave to amend. ATU Local 192 then sought reconsideration of the decision allowing Marshall to amend the contract claim. Marshall separately sought leave to file a fourth amended complaint.

Motion for Reconsideration

ATU Local 192 argued that Marshall’s contract claim was legally the same as his claim that the union breached its duty to represent him fairly. The Court agreed, relying particularly on California appellate decisions discussed in the motion. Those decisions treated claims labeled as contract claims as fair-representation claims when they alleged that a union failed to represent an employee in good faith during proceedings under a collective bargaining agreement.

The Court concluded that Marshall’s contract allegations likewise concerned ATU Local 192’s alleged failure to represent him in good faith during proceedings surrounding his demotion and attempt to regain the Mentor Coordinator position. It therefore granted ATU Local 192’s motion for reconsideration and dismissed Marshall’s breach-of-contract claim with leave to amend.

Motion for Leave to Amend

Marshall sought to add allegations that he was denied the Mentor Coordinator position again in 2024 in favor of a younger female coworker. He also sought to add Michael Hursh and Latrina Meredith as defendants. ATU Local 192 opposed amendments that would revive claims based on the 2021 events and opposed adding Meredith, but did not oppose amendments concerning the alleged 2024 events.

Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which generally calls for allowing amendments when justice requires, the Court denied leave to add new claims based on the 2021 events. The Court found undue delay and prejudice because those events had been part of the case from the beginning, and Marshall had previously abandoned his age-discrimination theories after the parties met and conferred.

The Court also denied leave to add Latrina Meredith as a defendant. It found that amendment would be futile because union officers and employees are not individually liable to third parties for acts performed as union representatives in the collective-bargaining process. Marshall did not respond to that argument, which the Court treated as a concession.

The Court granted the remaining, unopposed requests to amend. Marshall could add Michael Hursh as a party if he could allege facts supporting claims against him, add claims and allegations concerning the alleged 2024 denial of the position, and address deficiencies identified in the Court’s earlier order and this order.

Disposition

The Court granted both motions in part. It dismissed Marshall’s breach-of-contract claim with leave to amend; granted leave to add Michael Hursh and claims concerning alleged post-complaint conduct; and denied leave to add new claims involving the 2021 events or to add Latrina Meredith as a defendant. Marshall had 21 days from the order to file an amended complaint consistent with the ruling. The Court also continued the case-management conference to June 3, 2025.