Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05572/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05572-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

By order filed August 18, 2015, the Court took the matter under submission.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NELSON CARBALLO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COMCAST INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-13-5572 MMC

ORDER RE: COMMUNICATION

WORKERS OF AMERICA’S JOINDER IN

COMCAST’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; FINDING

COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF

AMERICA ENTITLED TO PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is defendant Communication Workers of America’s (“CWA”) 

“Joinder with Defendant Comcast’s Motion for Summary Judgment,” filed July 17, 2015. 

Plaintiff Nelson Carballo (“Carballo”) has filed opposition, to which CWA has replied.

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to CWA’s

joinder, the Court rules as follows.1

In its joinder, CWA argues that if the Court grants the motion for summary judgment

filed by Comcast, Inc. (“Comcast”), CWA likewise would be entitled to summary judgment. 

By separate order filed concurrently herewith, the Court has granted Comcast’s motion for

summary judgment. (See Order Granting Def. Comcast, Inc.’s Mot. for Summ. J.

(hereinafter “Comcast Order”).) The Court considers herein the parties’ dispute as to

Case 3:13-cv-05572-MMC Document 88 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In support of its joinder, CWA, in addition to relying on Comcast’s evidence and

arguments, has submitted its own evidence, in an effort to show its decision not to pursue

arbitration was made in good faith. (See Rosenthal Decl. Ex. A.) By order filed July 16,

2015, the Court denied CWA’s motion for summary judgment, finding CWA had failed to

show Carballo lacked evidence to establish bad faith. As CWA has not endeavored to

show a cognizable basis for reconsideration exists, see Civil L.R. 7-9, CWA’s newly-offered

evidence is not properly before the Court, and, accordingly, has not been considered.

2

whether the Court’s ruling in favor of Comcast necessarily forecloses Carballo’s claim

against CWA.2

In his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Carballo alleges he was formerly employed

by Comcast (see FAC ¶ 8), that the terms of his employment were governed by a collective

bargaining agreement (“CBA”) as to which CWA was his “exclusive bargaining agent” (see

FAC ¶ 18), that, in December 2012, Comcast terminated his employment “without any just

cause” (see FAC ¶ 19), and that CWA initially filed a grievance on his behalf and pursued it

“through Step Two of the grievance procedure” but did not further pursue the matter (see

FAC ¶¶ 19-20). Based on said allegations, Carballo asserts, as against CWA, a single

cause of action, specifically, the First Cause of Action, titled “Breach of Duty of Fair

Representation,” in which Carballo alleges that CWA, in “bad faith,” made a “decision not to

pursue [his] grievance” to arbitration. (See FAC ¶ 20(A).)

Where a union is the “exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in [a]

bargaining unit,” the union has a duty to “fairly represent all of those employees, both in its

collective bargaining with [the employer], . . . and in its enforcement of the resulting

collective bargaining agreement.” See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 177 (1967). “Because

most collective-bargaining agreements accord finality to grievance or arbitration

procedures established by the collective-bargaining agreement, an employee normally

cannot bring a [claim alleging the employer violated the CBA] unless he can show the union

breached its duty of fair representation in its handling of his grievance.” Chauffeurs,

Teamsters & Helpers, Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558, 564 (1990). “Whether the

employee sues both the labor union and the employer or only one of those entities, he

must prove the same two facts to recover money damages: that the employer’s action

Case 3:13-cv-05572-MMC Document 88 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

As explained in greater detail in the Court’s order filed concurrently herewith,

Carballo asserts as against Comcast eight causes of action, by which he alleges Comcast

failed to accommodate his disability and otherwise engaged in employment discrimination.

4

In its reply, CWA argues that Carballo, in his opposition to CWA’s joinder,

“affirmatively stated he does not intend to show Comcast breached the CBA.” (See CWA’s

Reply at 2:20-21.) In the portions of the opposition to which CWA cites, however, Carballo

states only that, in opposing Comcast’s motion for summary judgment, he need not and

has not endeavored to show Comcast breached the CBA. He does not concede that, for

purposes of his claim against CWA, he cannot establish such a breach.

3

violated the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement and that the union breached its

duty of fair representation.” Id.

Here, as Carballo points out, he has not sued Comcast for breach of the CBA, but,

rather, for violations of the Fair Housing and Employment Act (“FEHA”),3

 and his FEHA

claims do not require him to demonstrate that Comcast violated the terms of the CBA. See

Ackerman v. Western Electric Co., 860 F.2d 1514, 1517 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting FEHA

“confers upon employees certain rights not to be discriminated against”; holding such rights

are “defined and enforced under state law without reference to the terms of any collective

bargaining agreement”). Consequently, as Comcast’s motion did not require Carballo to

offer evidence to support a finding that Comcast breached the terms of the CBA, the

Court’s determination that Comcast is entitled to summary judgment on Carballo’s FEHA

claims does not itself preclude Carballo from demonstrating that Comcast violated the

terms of the CBA.4

The Court next considers whether the Court’s ruling in favor of Comcast on the

FEHA claims otherwise precludes Carballo from establishing a violation of the CBA, and, in

particular, whether the Court’s resolution of any factual issue raised by Comcast’s motion

likewise resolves that issue with respect to CWA.

In support of his claim that CWA breached its duty of fair representation, Carballo

alleges he had a viable grievance against Comcast based on Comcast’s violation of two

separate provisions of the CBA, specifically, Article 2, titled “No Discrimination” (see FAC

¶ 10), and Article 10, titled “Progressive Discipline” (see FAC ¶ 17-19).

//

Case 3:13-cv-05572-MMC Document 88 Filed 09/08/15 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

The “No Discrimination” clause provides, in relevant part, as follows: “Neither the

Employer nor the Union shall unlawfully coerce, intimidate or discriminate against any

employee within the unit because of . . . physical disability, as provided in the Americans

With Disabilities Act.” (See FAC Ex. I.) In other words, the CBA incorporates the

provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) that preclude discrimination on the

basis of physical disability, and thereby makes a violation of the ADA a breach of the CBA.

As set forth in the Comcast Order, Carballo has failed to show Comcast

discriminated against him on the basis of his disability. Although those findings were made

as to claims brought under FEHA, they are equally applicable to claims based on the ADA, 

See Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267, 271 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding, where

plaintiff asserted “disability discrimination claims” under both ADA and FEHA, “the same

analysis” applied to both claims, as “California relies on federal discrimination decisions to

interpret the FEHA”). As noted, the ADA is incorporated by reference in the “No

Discrimination” clause of the CBA.

Accordingly, to the extent the First Cause of Action is based on the theory that CWA

breached its duty of fair representation by not pursuing arbitration of a grievance premised

on a violation of the CBA’s “No Discrimination” clause, CWA is entitled to summary

judgment.

The Court next turns to the “Progressive Discipline” clause. The “Progressive

Discipline” clause provides, in relevant part, as follows:

The Union and the Employer agree with a philosophy of corrective and

progressive discipline, and that discipline and discharge shall be for just

cause. The Employer agrees that except in the case of serious offenses, the

Employer shall give an employee at least one (1) written warning and at least

one (1) suspension prior to discharge. Such prior discipline need not be for

the same causes. The Employer shall have the right to discharge employees

for just cause.

(See Carballo Decl., filed July 31, 2015, Ex. 2 at 14.) Although the FAC itself does not

include a detailed factual basis for Carballo’s claim that his termination was in violation of

the “Progressive Discipline” clause, the additional detail is provided in an exhibit attached

to the FAC, specifically, a union document summarizing the position taken by Carballo at

Case 3:13-cv-05572-MMC Document 88 Filed 09/08/15 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

the first two steps of the grievance process. (See FAC Ex. C at 3.) In particular, CWA, on

behalf of Carballo, took the position that the CBA, although permitting Comcast “to skip

progressive discipline in cases of serious offenses,” does not “provide that the employee

be treated disparately,” that there had been “27 instances where employees [had]

committed ‘serious offenses’ and the Company followed progressive steps of discipline,”

and that “the Company [was] unilaterally changing the practice and process of meting out

discipline and, as a result, treating the employee [Carballo] disparately.” (See id. Ex. C at

5.)

In its joinder, CWA does not contend that its reference to Comcast’s having treated

Carballo “disparately” (see id.) was a reference to discrimination on the basis of disability,

and, indeed, in an earlier filing, expressly argued that Carballo had not “raise[d] a disability

discrimination claim under the CBA” during the grievance process (see CWA’s Reply to

Pl.’s Opp. to Def.’s [CWA’s] Mot. for Summ. J., filed June 5, 2015 at 6:16-17). 

Consequently, CWA has failed to show that the Court’s order in favor of Comcast as to

Carballo’s FEHA claims necessarily forecloses Carballo’s claim against CWA based on a

failure to arbitrate a grievance premised on a violation of the “Progressive Discipline”

clause.

Accordingly, to the extent the First Cause of Action is based on the theory that CWA

breached its duty of fair representation by not pursuing arbitration of a grievance premised

on a violation of the CBA’s “Progressive Discipline” clause, CWA has not shown it is

entitled to summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above:

1. To the extent the First Cause of Action is based on the theory that CWA

breached its duty of fair representation by not pursuing arbitration of a grievance premised

on the CBA’s “No Discrimination” clause, Comcast’s motion for summary judgment is

hereby GRANTED in favor of CWA as well.

//

Case 3:13-cv-05572-MMC Document 88 Filed 09/08/15 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

2. To the extent the First Cause of Action is based on the theory that CWA

breached its duty by not pursuing arbitration of a grievance premised on a violation of the

CBA’s “Progressive Discipline” clause, Comcast’ motion has no bearing thereon, and,

accordingly, CWA is not entitled to summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05572-MMC Document 88 Filed 09/08/15 Page 6 of 6