Opinion ID: 221028
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: theory of the case

Text: The gravamen of this case is that on several occasions the Union passed over Powell’s name on a hiring hall list it maintained under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with companies using temporary labor, thereby depriving him of employment opportunities. The Union explains it did so because it had received “no-rehire” letters from the employers in question directing the Union not to send Powell due to problems with his work. Powell insists the Union’s action was, rather, attributable to race discrimination. It is important to be clear about the nature of the alleged discrimination. Unions have an affirmative duty to help ensure employers’ compliance with non-discrimination directives and can thus be liable just for acquiescing in the discriminatory acts of an employer. Romero v. Union Pac. R.R., 615 F.2d 1303, 1310-11 (10th Cir. 1980). But Powell disavows this indirect theory of liability, which of course fails if discrimination by the employer cannot be proved. Rather, he has alleged direct discrimination on the part of the Union in its handling of the no-rehire letters, explaining that “[t]he issue was not whether the employers were discriminatory, but whether the [Union] removed the plaintiff [from his position in the hiring list] without questioning the no-rehire letters as to their legitimacy.” Aplt. Brief at 16 n.4. Consistent with that charge, he stresses what he sees as racially disparate treatment of no-rehire letters by the Union, comparing its -2- capitulation in his case to its vigorous opposition to a no-rehire letter sent by an employer regarding a white laborer. In light of Powell’s theory of the case, then, whether the employers’ allegedly groundless no-rehire letters were racially motivated is not decisive; the thrust of his claim is that the Union failed to investigate and challenge the letters due to its own racial bias. Of course, the Union’s awareness of racial issues behind an employer’s no-rehire letter could still potentially bolster Powell’s case against the Union for its own bias on the direct discrimination theory he has pursued, as other arguments he advances on appeal reflect.