James v. United Furniture Workers Local 89262

Background

Anthony Alexander James sued United Furniture Workers Local 89262 (the Union) over the Union’s representation of him during his employment and termination at Sealy Tempur-Pedic. James initially filed the action in California state court without a lawyer, and the Union removed it to federal court.

James alleged that Sealy terminated him in 2016 based on documents showing three suspensions that he says did not occur. He alleged that the Union initially said it would file a grievance, later declined to help him, and did not take his grievance to arbitration. He also alleged that the Union treated him and another African American driver differently from non-African American employees facing discipline. His filings referred to claims including breach of contract, unfair business practices, wrongful termination, negligence, fraud, defamation, and race discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

The Union moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally valid claim. It argued that the claims were vague, preempted by the federal duty of fair representation, and barred by the six-month limitations period applicable to that duty. The Union also argued that James’s allegations did not plausibly show that it acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

Rulings on the Claims

The court held that James’s breach-of-contract, unfair-business-practices, wrongful-termination, and negligence theories appeared to depend solely on the Union’s failure to pursue his grievance and prevent his termination. The court therefore treated those theories as claims governed by the Union’s federal duty of fair representation under section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act. It held that the claims were filed outside the applicable six-month limitations period. The court granted the Union’s motion to dismiss those claims and granted leave to amend because James might be able to allege facts supporting a tolling theory or showing that the claims were distinct from the duty of fair representation.

The court did not decide whether James’s FEHA claim was preempted. It concluded that the claim plausibly alleged race discrimination because James alleged that the Union provided him and another African American driver less representation than it provided non-African American employees, despite knowing that the terminations were based on forged documents. But the court dismissed the FEHA claim because James did not allege that he completed the required administrative process, including receiving a right-to-sue letter from California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The court granted leave to amend that claim.

The court also dismissed with leave to amend the other claims mentioned only briefly in the complaint, including possible fraud and defamation claims, because the complaint did not clearly identify those claims or provide enough facts to notify the Union of their bases. The court did not treat James’s “Motion Not to Dismiss” as an amended complaint and did not consider its new allegations for purposes of deciding the motion.

Disposition

The court granted the Union’s motion to dismiss and dismissed James’s complaint with leave to amend no later than September 24, 2021. Any amended complaint had to include all facts, claims, and defendants James wished to pursue and comply with the federal pleading rules. If James adequately amended the FEHA claim, the court stated that it would later consider whether that claim was preempted by the federal duty of fair representation.