Thomas v. Vulcan Materials Company

Background

Gary Price Thomas sued Teamsters Local 665, Michael Yates, Mark Gleason, Teamsters Local Union 853, and Rodney Smith, collectively called the Union Defendants. He alleged that they discriminated against him by failing to properly protect his interests. His amended complaint asserted three claims against the Union Defendants:

The case also originally named Vulcan Materials Company, Calmat Co., Jeff Nehmens, and Phil Miller as employer defendants. The opinion states that Thomas and those defendants settled their claims and that the employer defendants were dismissed.

Failure to Oppose the Motion

The Union Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Thomas did not file an opposition by the deadline. The court then ordered him to show why he had not filed a timely opposition and warned that failing to respond would result in the court granting the motion to dismiss. Thomas did not respond to that order or to the motion.

The court stated that failing to oppose a motion to dismiss constitutes abandonment of the claims being challenged. It therefore granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court also considered whether dismissal was supported by the substance of the claims.

Reasons for Dismissal

For the FEHA claim, the court held that Thomas had not alleged that he completed the required administrative process before filing suit. That process requires filing an administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and obtaining a notice of the right to sue. Thomas did not allege either step or attach a right-to-sue letter. The court also found that he alleged no facts supporting an inference that the Union Defendants acted because of his race or age beyond a general statement that their actions were motivated by those characteristics. He did not allege, for example, that similarly situated people outside his protected groups received better treatment or identify other circumstances suggesting discrimination.

For intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court explained that the alleged conduct must be extreme and outrageous—conduct beyond all bounds of decency. The allegations that the Union Defendants maintained a collective bargaining agreement that denied certain protections, staged a fraudulent grievance process, failed to comply with the agreement, and terminated Thomas under specified work rules were not enough to meet that standard.

For unjust enrichment, the court noted that some California courts do not recognize unjust enrichment as an independent cause of action and instead treat it as a remedy. The court also concluded that Thomas’s claim was based on the Union Defendants’ alleged failure to provide lifetime medical benefits under agreements and in exchange for dues. Because a contract appeared to define the parties’ rights, the court found that the unjust enrichment claim was barred.

Disposition

Judge Kandis Westmore granted the Union Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Thomas’s complaint with prejudice. The opinion states that dismissal was warranted both because Thomas failed to oppose the motion and because the complaint’s claims were inadequately pleaded.