Sims v. Met Council

Background

Stephanie Sims alleged that, while employed by Metro Transit, she was exposed to sexual material at work. She alleged that she reported the incident to supervisors, who did not respond, and that co-workers confronted her about the report, causing her to fear for her safety. Her complaint supplement asserted that she reported sexual harassment to Metro Transit and the Met Council, that they failed to take the matter seriously, and that she consequently experienced intolerable and toxic working conditions.

Sims asserted six causes of action: termination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; retaliation; negligent infliction of emotional distress; respondeat superior liability, meaning responsibility for an employee’s conduct; vicarious liability; and negligence in handling her complaint. She sought $1.2 million in damages. The Union moved to dismiss the claims against it under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint contains enough factual allegations to plausibly support relief.

Title VII and Minnesota Human Rights Act claims

The complaint listed Metro Transit and the Met Council—not the Union—as defendants on the federal and state employment-discrimination claims. Sims and the Union nevertheless treated those claims as potentially asserted against the Union. The court held that the claims could not proceed against the Union because the complaint did not allege that the Union caused or attempted to cause the employer to discriminate, or otherwise played a role in the alleged violations.

The court also held that Sims had not exhausted the required administrative remedies for discrimination claims against the Union. Although she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the charge did not mention the Union. The court further explained that an alleged failure to pursue a grievance would, at most, involve a union’s duty to fairly represent a worker—not a claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act or Title VII. Sims had not pleaded such a claim, and the court stated that such a claim would be untimely in any event.

Vicarious liability

The court rejected Sims’s vicarious-liability theory against the Union. It stated that a union cannot be held civilly liable for actions by its members without allegations that the union actually participated in, authorized, or later ratified those actions with knowledge of them. The complaint alleged only that the Union failed to act after Sims complained. The court also stated that the Union had no affirmative duty to investigate and remedy the employer’s alleged discrimination. Those allegations were therefore insufficient to hold the Union vicariously liable for the alleged harassment.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress

The court held that Sims had not pleaded the elements of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Under the standard discussed in the opinion, she had to allege that she was in danger of physical impact, reasonably feared for her safety, and suffered severe emotional distress resulting in physical injury. The complaint and supplement vaguely referred to threats but did not adequately allege those elements. The court specifically stated that Sims’s failure to allege any physical injury was fatal to this claim. Allegations raised for the first time in her opposition brief could not amend the complaint.

Disposition

The court granted Defendant Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1005’s Motion to Dismiss. It ordered that Sims’s claims against the Union be dismissed with prejudice.