Marshall v. Alameda Contra Costa Transit District

Background

Danny Marshall sued Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, also called AC Transit or the District, his union, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 192, and other defendants. He alleged that he was removed from the Mentor Coordinator position in 2021 and replaced by a less qualified and less senior female colleague. He also alleged that the decision was retaliation for campaigning against Robert Coleman, who was then president of ATU Local 192. In the Fourth Amended Complaint, Marshall added Michael Hursh, AC Transit’s former general manager, and added allegations involving age and race discrimination in the 2021 mentor coordinator selection process.

The defendants moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and moved to strike certain allegations under Rule 12(f). The court had previously ruled that Marshall could pursue certain claims based on the 2024 mentor coordinator process but could not revive age-discrimination and retaliation claims based on the 2021 process.

Claims Against AC Transit

The court dismissed Marshall’s Section 1983 claims against AC Transit. Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for violations of constitutional or federal rights by someone acting under state authority.

For the First Amendment retaliation claim, Marshall alleged that he was demoted because he campaigned against Coleman in a union election. The court held that the complaint did not adequately allege that AC Transit or Hursh knew about, or acted because of, protected speech. Marshall also relied in his opposition on statements about his removal and requests to pursue a grievance, but those allegations were not in the complaint. The court therefore did not consider them in deciding the motion. It further stated that statements about individual personnel disputes and grievances generally do not involve matters of public concern.

For the Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim, the court held that Marshall had not identified a protected property interest in keeping the Mentor Coordinator position. The collective bargaining agreement provisions he cited addressed termination, discipline, and the selection process, but did not guarantee that an employee could hold the position indefinitely or establish a right to procedures that Marshall did not receive.

Claims Against Michael Hursh and Robert Coleman

The court dismissed Michael Hursh as a defendant because the Fourth Amended Complaint did not identify a cause of action against him. The complaint defined AC Transit and ATU Local 192 as the entity defendants and did not link Hursh to a specific unlawful act in a legally sufficient way. The court dismissed Hursh without reaching the defendants’ qualified-immunity argument.

The court likewise dismissed Robert Coleman as a defendant. Marshall did not specify a cause of action against Coleman in the Fourth Amended Complaint. The court also noted that union officers and employees are not individually liable to third parties for acts performed as union representatives in collective bargaining.

Breach-of-Contract Claim Against ATU Local 192

The court dismissed Marshall’s breach-of-contract claim. Marshall identified only the collective bargaining agreement as the agreement allegedly breached. Relying on its earlier ruling and California law, the court held that a union-related contract claim based on an alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement is treated as a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation rather than as a separate contract claim.

Motions to Strike

The court granted AC Transit’s and ATU Local 192’s motions to strike allegations concerning age and gender discrimination in the 2021 mentor coordinator process. The court held that those allegations violated its prior order prohibiting Marshall from reviving discrimination and retaliation claims based on that process. The court found that the Fourth Amended Complaint expressly alleged that age and gender were motivating factors in Marshall’s 2021 removal and replacement.

Disposition and Remaining Claims

The court dismissed the Section 1983 and breach-of-contract claims against all defendants and dismissed Coleman and Hursh as defendants. Because Marshall had received numerous opportunities to amend, the court concluded that amendment would be futile and made the dismissal of those claims and defendants with prejudice.

The court stated that Marshall may continue his FEHA discrimination, retaliation, and failure-to-prevent-discrimination claims against AC Transit and ATU Local 192; his duty-of-fair-representation claim against ATU Local 192; and his new retaliation claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act against both AC Transit and ATU Local 192. The court limited his age-discrimination claims to conduct involving the 2024 mentor coordinator recruiting process.