Laborers International Union Local 261 v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Laborers International Union Local 261 and its members Theresa Foglio-Ramirez and Juan Rivera sued the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF). They alleged retaliation and discrimination under federal and California law after complaints about unsafe and unsanitary working conditions, alleged public corruption, and union-related matters. Their claims included federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a California whistleblower claim under Labor Code § 1102.5, and a claim under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act.

The CCSF asked the court to dismiss two § 1983 claims because Local 261 allegedly lacked standing. Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient connection to the dispute to invoke federal-court jurisdiction. The CCSF also sought dismissal of the California whistleblower claim as to Local 261 because a union is not an “employee,” and dismissal of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act claim because the plaintiffs allegedly had not exhausted administrative remedies.

Standing

The court held that Local 261 had organizational standing for the two § 1983 claims. The union alleged that it diverted resources to investigate alleged corruption, address restroom and personal-protective-equipment issues, support complaints, and defend a representative. The court concluded that these alleged diversions away from the union’s mission were sufficient to show a direct organizational injury. The court therefore denied the CCSF’s motion to dismiss those claims for lack of organizational standing.

The court separately addressed associational standing, which allows an organization to sue on behalf of its members. It held that Local 261 could pursue declaratory and injunctive relief for its members because that relief did not require individualized participation in the litigation. But the union could not seek monetary damages on its members’ behalf because determining damages would likely require individualized proof about each member’s experience. The court therefore denied in part and granted in part the CCSF’s motion concerning associational standing.

California Whistleblower Claim

California Labor Code § 1102.5 protects an employee from retaliation for certain disclosures. The court held that Local 261 did not fit the statute’s definition of an employee and that the complaint did not plausibly allege an employee-employer relationship between Local 261 and the CCSF. The court dismissed Local 261’s § 1102.5 claim with prejudice.

Meyers-Milias-Brown Act Claim

The court rejected the CCSF’s argument that the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act provides no private right of action. Instead, the court concluded that the weight of existing case law supported a private action after the plaintiff first exhausts administrative remedies before the California Public Employment Relations Board, unless an exception applies.

The complaint contained only a conclusory statement that the plaintiffs had exhausted administrative remedies. The court found that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged exhaustion or an excuse from that requirement. It dismissed the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act claim. In the analysis, the court described this dismissal as without prejudice; in the conclusion, it stated that the claim was dismissed with leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the CCSF’s motion to dismiss. Local 261 had organizational standing for the two federal claims and associational standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief for its members, but not to seek monetary damages for those members. Local 261’s § 1102.5 claim was dismissed with prejudice. The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act claim was dismissed with leave to amend. The court did not set a deadline for amendment and stated that it would discuss the issue at the initial case-management conference.