Alfaro v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

Background

Jessy Alfaro, a Latina woman, worked for United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) from 2011 until UFCW terminated her employment on February 22, 2021. She sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that UFCW discriminated against her because of race and gender by failing to promote her, subjecting her to harassment and unequal pay, retaliating against her, and terminating her.

Alfaro also alleged that UFCW treated her differently from other employees. She represented herself in the case. UFCW moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence presents a genuine dispute requiring a trial. Alfaro moved for permission to respond to new evidence and amend or supplement her complaint.

Failure-to-Promote Claims

Alfaro challenged UFCW’s decisions not to select her for several positions for which she applied between 2017 and 2019, as well as UFCW’s failure to promote her to International Representative and to a management position in the meatpacking division.

The court held that claims concerning the specific positions for which Alfaro applied before 2020 were barred by Title VII’s deadline for filing a discrimination charge. Because she filed her charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on August 11, 2021, the court determined that she could recover for acts beginning October 15, 2020. The court treated the International Representative and management-promotion claims as not time-barred because her eligibility for those potential promotions continued into the allowable period.

The court nevertheless granted summary judgment on all of the failure-to-promote claims. For the 2017–2019 applications, the court found that Alfaro had not provided evidence that she met the stated qualifications or that the selected candidates were similarly or equally qualified. For the International Representative position, the court found that her supervisor did not evaluate her because he did not know he was expected to do so, but Alfaro provided no evidence that this mistake was a pretext for race- or gender-based discrimination. The court also noted evidence that she lacked required experience and would have received a negative evaluation because of a recent warning. For the management position, the court found that UFCW’s stated requirement that a General Organizer first serve as an International Representative was nondiscriminatory and that Alfaro had not shown she was qualified or that the requirement was a pretext.

Hostile-Work-Environment Claim

Alfaro described actions by several UFCW employees, including questions about leaving work assignments early, reprimands and warnings, communications about missed assignments and meetings, requests for technical information, and supervision of her remote work during the pandemic.

The court considered conduct outside the filing period to the extent it might have been part of a continuing hostile work environment. It granted summary judgment for UFCW because Alfaro had not provided evidence that the conduct was motivated by her race or gender and because the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to change the conditions of her employment. The court characterized most of the communications as ordinary supervision, including monitoring work, helping with technology, and holding employees accountable.

Retaliation Claim

Alfaro alleged that UFCW retaliated against her by issuing a write-up after she complained about discrimination. The court held that the claim was time-barred because the discipline occurred in June 2017, years before her discrimination charge. The court also held that the claim would fail on the merits even if it were timely. Alfaro did not show that the write-up changed the terms or conditions of her employment or that it was caused by her discrimination complaint. The court therefore dismissed the retaliation claim.

Termination Claim

Alfaro alleged that UFCW terminated her because of her race or sex. The court granted summary judgment for UFCW, finding that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that race or gender caused the termination.

The court relied on evidence that Alfaro failed to respond to Facebook comments and private messages, missed required meetings, did not respond to attempts to help her join a meeting, and reported performing Hustle work when UFCW’s records showed that she had sent no Hustle messages for at least 90 days. The court also found that Alfaro had not identified similarly situated employees who engaged in the same conduct but were not terminated. The evidence identified by Alfaro included people assigned to different work, people in different Hustle groups, and people who were not UFCW employees or no longer worked in the group.

Unequal-Pay Claim and Motion to Amend

Alfaro alleged that UFCW paid her less and gave her fewer privileges than white male coworkers. The court considered the allegation under both Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. It held that she had not shown that the coworkers she identified performed equal work requiring comparable skill, effort, and responsibility, or that they had similar credentials, experience, or duties. The court therefore granted summary judgment for UFCW on the unequal-pay claim.

The court denied Alfaro’s request to amend her complaint to clarify an Equal Pay Act claim, explaining that the claim would fail on the merits even if she had properly invoked that statute.

Disposition

The court granted UFCW’s motion for summary judgment and denied Alfaro’s motion to supplement or amend. The order directed that judgment be entered.