Marshall v. Alameda Contra Costa Transit District

Background

Danny Marshall alleged that Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, also called AC Transit, and Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 192 demoted him from the Mentor Coordinator position and replaced him with a less qualified and less senior female coworker. He alleged that the decision was partly retaliation for campaigning against Robert Coleman, then the union president. The Fourth Amended Complaint also named Michael Hursh, AC Transit’s former general manager, and included allegations about age and race discrimination in the 2021 mentor-coordinator selection process.

The defendants moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint and moved to strike allegations concerning age discrimination and other discrimination claims based on the 2021 process. The court had previously limited Marshall’s ability to add claims concerning the 2021 process and had allowed him to pursue certain claims concerning the 2024 process.

Claims Against AC Transit

Marshall brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that permits claims against persons acting under state law for violations of federal rights. He alleged that AC Transit violated the First Amendment by retaliating against him for his union-election campaign and violated the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving him of a property interest in the Mentor Coordinator position without adequate procedures.

The court held that Marshall did not adequately plead a First Amendment retaliation claim. The complaint did not identify a statement that AC Transit or Hursh knew about or treated as a substantial or motivating factor in the decision to remove him. The court also declined to consider additional speech allegations raised only in Marshall’s opposition to the motion because those allegations were not in the complaint. The court held that Marshall did not identify a law, regulation, agreement, or other source giving him a protected property interest in continuing to hold the position, and that the quoted collective-bargaining-agreement provisions did not establish such an entitlement. The court therefore dismissed the constitutional claims.

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 or link him to specific unlawful conduct. The court did not reach Hursh’s qualified-immunity defense.

The court likewise dismissed Robert Coleman as a defendant because the Fourth Amended Complaint did not specify a cause of action against him. The court also noted its earlier ruling 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 against ATU Local 192. Marshall identified only the collective bargaining agreement as the allegedly breached agreement. Relying on its earlier ruling and California law, the court concluded that a union-related breach-of-contract claim based on violation of a collective bargaining agreement was treated as a duty-of-fair-representation claim 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 discrimination and related discrimination or retaliation claims based on the 2021 mentor-coordinator process. The court found that the Fourth Amended Complaint included allegations that were within the scope of its prior prohibition on reviving claims from that process.

Disposition

The court granted both defendants’ motions to dismiss and motions to strike. It dismissed the § 1983 and breach-of-contract claims against all defendants and dismissed Hursh and Coleman as defendants. Because Marshall had received numerous opportunities to amend and the court found further amendment would be futile, the dismissals of those claims and defendants were with prejudice.

The court stated that Marshall may continue pursuing his California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims for discrimination, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination against AC Transit and ATU Local 192. He may also proceed with his Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims against both defendants, but only for age-discrimination claims based on the 2024 mentor-coordinator recruiting process.