Abdul-Haqq v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.

Background

The court’s earlier dismissal order allowed pro se plaintiff Jamilah Abdul-Haqq to pursue a duty-of-fair-representation claim against her union, the California Nurses Association (CNA), solely on the theory that CNA acted in bad faith. Abdul-Haqq and CNA each moved for summary judgment on that claim.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. A factual dispute is genuine when a reasonable jury could decide for the nonmoving party, and a fact is material when it could affect the case’s outcome. The court views the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.

The court explained that its review of a union’s duty of fair representation is narrow and gives substantial deference to the union’s decisions about representing members. When a union’s conduct involves judgment, a plaintiff may prevail only by showing discriminatory or bad-faith conduct. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving bad faith with substantial evidence of fraud, deceitful action, or dishonest conduct. Mere disagreement, negligence, or an incorrect judgment call is not enough by itself.

Court’s analysis

Even giving Abdul-Haqq every benefit of the doubt as a pro se plaintiff, the court found that the record did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact about whether CNA acted in bad faith in handling her employment issues. Instead, the record indicated that CNA acted in a reasoned and rational way. Abdul-Haqq disagreed with CNA’s decision not to pursue arbitration and with other judgment calls, but the court concluded that those disagreements were not evidence of fraud, deceit, or dishonesty. The court also found that Abdul-Haqq had offered no other evidence supporting bad faith.

Disposition

The court granted CNA’s motion for summary judgment. It denied Abdul-Haqq’s motion for summary judgment for the same reasons. The opinion does not state a separate disposition concerning the other defendants named in the caption.