Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03733/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03733-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Edmundson
Defendant
Orville Meaux
Plaintiff
Northwest Airlines, Inc.
Defendant
Professional Flight Attendants Association
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORVILLE MEAUX,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.; ERIC

EDMUNDSON, individually and as an

employee of Northwest Airlines,

Inc.,; PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT ATTENDANTS

ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1- 20,

Inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-3733 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT PFAA'S

MOTION TO DISMISS 

Defendant Professional Flight Attendants Association (PFAA)

moves to dismiss Plaintiff Orville Meaux's amended complaint or,

alternatively, moves for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes the

motion. In a separate motion, Defendant PFAA, together with its

counsel of record, move for an order permitting its counsel to

conditionally withdraw from this action. Plaintiff has filed a

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 117 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Plaintiff states that the terms of the settlement are

confidential.

2

limited opposition to that motion. The matters were heard on

October 6, 2006. Having considered all of the papers filed by the

parties and oral argument on the motions, the Court denies

Defendant PFAA's motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for

summary judgment and grants Defendant PFAA's motion to permit

conditional withdrawal of counsel.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are alleged in Plaintiff's compliant. In

1977, Plaintiff began working for Defendant Northwest Airlines,

Inc., or its predecessors. During the 1980's, he was stationed in

Minnesota. While in Minnesota, Plaintiff filed an employment

discrimination complaint, alleging that his supervisor, Defendant

Eric Edmundson, imposed a disciplinary penalty on him because of

his race. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights concluded that

there was sufficient probable cause to support Plaintiff's

employment discrimination complaint. Plaintiff then filed a

lawsuit against Defendant Northwest, alleging race discrimination. 

The lawsuit settled.1

 Shortly after settlement, Plaintiff was

transferred to Los Angeles, California.

While he was based in Los Angeles, Plaintiff satisfactorily

performed his job duties; no disciplinary actions were taken

against him. In November, 2000, he applied for a position as a

purser, a senior flight attendant. Defendant Northwest promoted

Plaintiff, and his new position, as a purser, resulted in increased

pay and increased responsibility.

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 117 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Although Plaintiff was based in Los Angeles, he resided in the

San Francisco Bay Area. When a comparable position based in San

Francisco was available, Plaintiff applied for the position. He

did not know that Defendant Edmundson, his former supervisor, was

Defendant Northwest's base manager at the San Francisco

International Airport. 

In November, 2001, Plaintiff was transferred to a new

position, as a purser, based at the San Francisco International

Airport. On his first day of work, he encountered Defendant

Edmundson, who accused him of being late, even though Plaintiff

claims he was not. Defendant Edmundson made this accusation to

harass Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff previously bringing

an employment discrimination complaint against him. After this

incident, Plaintiff complained to Defendant PFAA, through its

representative Joanne Kazemi, that Defendant Edmundson was

harassing him in retaliation for the events that transpired in

Minnesota. Ms. Kazemi stated that she did not intend to

investigate or follow-up Plaintiff's complaint.

In December, 2001, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant

Northwest concerning Defendant Edmundson's retaliatory behavior. 

He sent copies of the letter to Defendant Edmundson and Defendant

PFAA's representative Ms. Kazemi. Defendant Northwest never

responded. 

On August 2, 2003, Plaintiff was acting a purser on a flight

from San Francisco to Japan. There was a disruptive Japanese

passenger on the flight. The passenger became highly

confrontational with Plaintiff, who was preparing the cabin for

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 117 Filed 10/11/06 Page 3 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff attached the termination letter to his declaration

in opposition to Defendant PFAA's motion. According to the letter,

Defendant Edmundson terminated Plaintiff because Plaintiff violated

five of Defendant Northwest's Rules of Conduct for Employees. 

First, he engaged in conduct detrimental to Defendant Northwest's

best interest when he "sent a lengthy letter to a passenger's

employer falsely alleging that the passenger was disruptive,

unruly, interfered with crew duties and violated Federal Air

Regulations." Meaux Decl., Ex. B. Second, he failed to follow his

"manager's direction to refrain from contacting the passenger

4

landing. Plaintiff attempted to defuse the situation. He asked

the passenger not to be disruptive. But the passenger would not

listen and continued his disruptive behavior. Plaintiff then

showed the passenger a "Notice of Violation Card," which is used to

inform disruptive passengers of the federal airline regulations

they are violating and the potential penalties associated with

violating those regulation. When the passenger got off the plane,

he complained to an agent of Defendant Northwest regarding

Plaintiff's behavior. 

Although Plaintiff had an excellent record and had not

violated any rules, on September 29, 2003, Defendant Northwest

demoted Plaintiff based on the passenger's complaints. The

demotion was without just cause and not based on a reasonable,

competent and unbiased investigation. After he was demoted, and

removed from the position of purser, Plaintiff's supervisor, Dena

Rasmussen, informed Plaintiff that he could write to the disruptive

passenger's employer. Plaintiff sent a letter to the passenger's

employer describing the incident and the passenger's disruptive

behavior. 

On January 26, 2004, Defendant Edmundson terminated Plaintiff

for writing a letter to the employer.2 Defendant PFAA filed a

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 117 Filed 10/11/06 Page 4 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

directly regarding his complaint." Id. Third, he provided false

and misleading information when he denied that his manager had

instructed him to refrain from contacting the passenger directly. 

Fourth, he failed to cooperate in the investigation when he

provided false testimony. And, fifth, he failed to use good

judgment and common sense when he contacted the passenger's

employer.

3

In June, 2004, Plaintiff filed a suit against Defendant

Northwest. On September 27, 2005, the Court, in light of Defendant

Northwest's bankruptcy, conditionally closed that case.

5

grievance based on Plaintiff's demotion and termination, though it

later dropped the demotion grievance. Defendant PFAA, however,

failed to investigate the facts relating to Plaintiff's demotion

and discharge, failed to obtain his entire personnel file and

failed to interview key witnesses. It processed his grievance in a

perfunctory manner and therefore had insufficient information to

evaluate Defendant Northwest's settlement offer, which Plaintiff

rejected. Defendant PFAA also processed Plaintiff's grievance in

an arbitrary manner when it refused to forward his revised countersettlement demand to Defendant Northwest and when it elected not to

arbitrate his grievance without having performed a reasonable and

competent investigation, or any investigation at all.

Although not alleged in the complaint, the parties do not

dispute that, on March 9, 2005, Defendant PFAA decided not to

expend funds on the representation of Plaintiff in arbitration of

his grievance. On March 15, 2005, Plaintiff received notice of

this decision.

On September 15, 2005, Plaintiff filed this suit against

Defendant Northwest, Defendant Edmundson and Defendant PFAA.3 He

brought claims for violations of the Railway Labor Act (RLA),

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 117 Filed 10/11/06 Page 5 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and breach of the

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff has not

served Defendant Northwest with the summons and complaint;

Defendant Northwest filed for bankruptcy in September, 2005. On

July 7, 2006, the Court granted with prejudice Defendant

Edmundson's motion to dismiss. Thus, Defendant PFAA is the only

remaining Defendant.

On July 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed his amended complaint,

bringing a single cause of action against Defendant PFAA for breach

of the duty of fair representation. Defendant PFAA contends that

this sole cause of action against it fails on several different

grounds, most of which it previously raised in its opposition to

Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint.

LEGAL STANDARD

Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Federal subject matter jurisdiction must exist

at the time the action is commenced. Morongo Band of Mission

Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th

Cir. 1988). A federal court is presumed to lack subject matter

jurisdiction until the contrary affirmatively appears. Stock West,

Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989).

A Rule 12(b)(1) motion may either attack the sufficiency of

the pleadings to establish federal jurisdiction, or allege an

actual lack of jurisdiction which exists despite the formal

sufficiency of the complaint. Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. Gen. Tel. &

Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979); Roberts v.

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 117 Filed 10/11/06 Page 6 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 7

Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987). In deciding a

Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the court assumes the truth of the

allegations in the complaint, unless controverted by undisputed

facts in the record. Roberts, 812 F.2d at 1177. An action should

not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without

giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend unless it is clear

that the jurisdictional deficiency cannot be cured by amendment. 

May Dep’t Store v. Graphic Process Co., 637 F.2d 1211, 1216 (9th

Cir. 1980). 

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to dismiss

Defendant PFAA's motion is based on three arguments: (1) this

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the amended complaint

because it is preempted by the RLA due to Plaintiff's failure to

exhaust contractual grievance procedures; (2) Plaintiff's amended

complaint is time-barred; and (3) Plaintiff has failed to plead or

establish facts sufficient to support a cognizable claim for the

breach of duty of fair representation. Because the Court dismisses

Plaintiff's claim, for failure to pursue contractual grievance

procedures, the Court need not address Defendant PFAA's second and

third arguments.

 As noted above, Defendant PFAA argues that the Court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over the amended claim for breach of

the duty of fair representation because Plaintiff failed to exhaust

mandatory contractual remedies and thus his claim is preempted

under the RLA. This is the second time Defendant PFAA raises this

argument. It first raised this argument in its opposition to

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 117 Filed 10/11/06 Page 7 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 8

Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint. 

In its order granting Plaintiff leave to file his amended

complaint, the Court cited Czosek v. O'Mara, 397 U.S. 25 (1970). 

In Czosek, the Supreme Court held that a suit against a union for

breach of its duty of fair representation is "not subject to the

ordinary rule that administrative remedies should be exhausted

before resort to the courts." 397 U.S. at 27 (noting that a claim

against a union for breach of its duty of fair representation is "a

discrete claim quite apart from the right of individual employees

expressly extended to them under the Railway Labor Act to pursue

their employer before the Adjustment Board"). 

In its current motion, Defendant PFAA acknowledges the Court's

prior ruling. But it notes that the Supreme Court in Czosek held

that a claim for the duty of fair representation did not require

exhaustion of administrative remedies. Here, Defendant PFAA argues

that Plaintiff's claim against it should be dismissed because

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his contractual remedies. Defendant

PFAA cites cases not previously cited, supporting its argument that

Plaintiff's duty of fair representation claim requires exhaustion

of contractual remedies available under the collective bargaining

agreement. 

In Carr v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n, 904 F.2d 1313, 1317 (9th

Cir. 1990), the Ninth Circuit explained that the requirement that

employees must exhaust contractual grievance procedures before

bringing an action against their employer for breach of the

collective bargain "applies with equal force to claims brought

against a union for breach of the duty of fair representation.” 

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 117 Filed 10/11/06 Page 8 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4In addition to holding that an employee is required to

exhaust contractual grievance procedures before bringing a claim

against a union for breach of the duty of fair representation, the

Croston court also held that an employee's State handicap

discrimination claim was preempted by the RLA. 999 F.3d at 387-89. 

In Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246 (1994), the

Supreme Court held that a State law cause of action is not

preempted by the RLA if it involves rights and obligations existing

independent of the collective bargaining agreement. Thus, the

portion of Croston holding that a State handicap discrimination

claim is preempted by the RLA is no longer good law. The holding

that an employee, bringing a duty of fair representation claim,

must exhaust her or his contractual grievance procedures, however,

remains good law.

5

In Plaintiff's opposition, he states that, based on Defendant

PFAA's bad faith conduct in bringing this motion, he seeks

substantial sanctions from Defendant PFAA in the amount of his

attorneys' fees. Because sanctions are not properly requested in

an opposition, the Court will not address Plaintiff's request. See

Civ. L.R. 7-8.

9

The Ninth Circuit repeated this requirement in Croston v.

Burlington Northern Railraod. Co., 999 F.2d 381 (9th Cir 1993),

overruled on other grounds by Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris,

512 U.S. 246 (1994),4

 one of the cases Defendant PFAA cites for the

first time. See also Beriault v. Local 40, Super Cargoes and

Checkers, ILWU,, 501 F.2d 258, 266 (9th Cir. 1974) (although court

had jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1337, to entertain suits for

breach of the duty of fair representation, the court dismissed the

unfair representation claim against the union because the plaintiff

failed to pursue contractual grievance procedures). 

Plaintiff responds that Czosek is the law of this case and

argues that Croston was wrongly decided.5 As noted above, however,

Czosek held that administrative exhaustion is not requirement; it

did not hold that an employee bringing a claim for breach of the

duty of fair representation need not exhaust contractual grievance

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 117 Filed 10/11/06 Page 9 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6Both parties submitted numerous objections to the other

parties' evidence. To the extent that the Court relied upon

evidence to which there is an objection, the parties' objections

are overruled. To the extent that the Court did not rely on such

evidence, the parties' objections are overruled as moot. The Court

has not relied on any inadmissible evidence in deciding this

motion.

10

procedures. Furthermore, as the Court explained at the hearing on

this motion, the Court is required to follow Ninth Circuit law,

even if it is, as Plaintiff contends, wrongly decided. 

Here, Defendant PFAA informed Plaintiff that, although it

would not fund his arbitration, he had the right to pursue his

grievance against Defendant Northwest to arbitration. But he did

not pursue his grievance. Because Plaintiff failed to exhaust the

contractual grievance procedures available to him, the Court must

dismiss his claim for breach of the duty of fair representation.

II. Motion to permit conditional withdrawal of counsel

Defendant PFAA, together with its counsel, move for an order

permitting its counsel of record to withdraw conditionally from

this action. At the hearing on Defendant PFAA's motion to dismiss

or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, defense counsel

withdrew this motion. Defense counsel will continue to represent

Defendant PFAA until judgment is entered in this case. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant PFAA's

Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 67).6 Plaintiff's claim against

Defendant PFAA is dismissed for failure to pursue contractual

grievance procedures. Defendant PFAA's Motion to Permit 

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 117 Filed 10/11/06 Page 10 of 11
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 11

Conditional Withdrawl of Counsel of Record (Docket No. 89) has been 

WITHDRAWN. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/11/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 117 Filed 10/11/06 Page 11 of 11