Roberts v. United Food & Commercial Workers Local 648

Background

Darryl Roberts sued United Food & Commercial Workers Local 648 under Title VII, the federal law governing certain employment discrimination. Roberts alleged that the union terminated his employment and interfered with his right, as a member in good standing, to run for a higher union office. He identified race or color as the basis for the alleged discrimination. He also appeared without a lawyer.

Roberts had worked as a union business representative. In 2016, he ran against the incumbent union president and other candidates in an election for internal management positions. He was initially declared the winner, but the election committee ordered a new election after finding that he had violated election rules. Before the new election, the incumbent president terminated Roberts. The president stated that Roberts was fired because his opposition and criticism were disloyal and made his continued employment as a union business representative untenable.

The court’s analysis

The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

First, the court held that Title VII did not apply because the union had 11 employees when Roberts was terminated. Title VII defines an employer, for purposes relevant here, as an entity with at least 15 employees during the required period. The union submitted evidence of its employee count, and Roberts did not contest it. The court held that summary judgment was proper on that ground alone.

Second, the court held that summary judgment was independently proper under the burden-shifting framework used for Title VII discrimination claims. Roberts offered only a conclusory allegation that he was discriminated against because of race or color. The court took judicial notice, based on his appearance at the hearing, that he was African-American, but found that he offered no evidence that he was performing his job satisfactorily or that similarly situated people outside his racial class received more favorable treatment. The court also noted that Roberts’s earlier charges with the National Labor Relations Board attributed his termination to political activity against a union officer and did not mention race or color.

The court further held that, even if Roberts had met his initial burden, the union gave legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination. Those reasons were Roberts’s opposition to the incumbent president in the election and the union’s asserted interest in having a business representative who could effectively carry out the union’s policies and maintain a unified relationship with its membership. Roberts did not provide direct or substantial circumstantial evidence showing that these reasons were a pretext for racial discrimination.

The court separately rejected any retaliation claim. Roberts did not identify activity protected by Title VII, such as opposing an unlawful employment practice or participating in a Title VII investigation. His administrative complaints were filed after his termination and therefore could not serve as the protected activity supporting a retaliation claim. The court also found that he did not show that the union’s stated reasons were pretextual.

The defendant had also argued that Roberts could not establish a claim under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act concerning union election rights. The court found that Roberts’s complaint did not specify such a claim. The court added that, even if it liberally construed his allegations as asserting one, he could not show that the claim was actionable under the Supreme Court’s decision concerning similar post-election terminations of union staff.

Disposition

The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered the order on December 20, 2019.