Laperriere v. UAW ( 2003 )

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 2 LaPerriere v. UAW No. 01-1576
ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2003 FED App. 0377P (6th Cir.)File Name: 03a0377p.06 _________________
COUNSEL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ARGUED: William A. Wertheimer, Jr., Bingham Farms,
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Michigan, for Appellant. Lauren M. Tomayko, Sterling
_________________ Heights, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: William A.
Wertheimer, Jr., Bingham Farms, Michigan, for Appellant.
EDGAR D. LA PERRIERE, JR., X Lauren M. Tomayko, Sterling Heights, Michigan, for
Plaintiff-Appellee, - Appellee.
-
- No. 01-1576 _________________
v. -
> OPINION
, _________________
INTERNATIONAL UNION, -
UNITED AUTOMOBILE , - MYRON H. BRIGHT, Circuit Judge. Edgar LaPerriere
AEROSPACE AND - sued the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT - and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("UAW"),
WORKERS OF AMERICA , - alleging the UAW failed to represent him fairly in his
Defendant-Appellant. - discharge grievance against his employer, Chrysler
- Corporation ("Chrysler"). A jury returned a verdict in favor
N of LaPerriere in the amount of $165,573. The UAW appeals
Appeal from the United States District Court the judgment in favor of LaPerriere and the court's denial of
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. its motion for judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative
No. 98-72037—Denise Page Hood, District Judge. for a new trial relating to damages. For the reasons set forth
below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Argued: March 14, 2003
I. BACKGROUND
Decided and Filed: October 24, 2003 Since 1972, Chrysler has employed LaPerriere, a dues
* paying member in good standing of the UAW Local 412,
Before: COLE, GILMAN, and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges. Unit 10, District 3. On June 20, 1994, a task force of
Oakland/Macomb County sheriffs and members of Chrysler’s
security staff raided the homes and businesses of some
Chrysler employees pursuant to search warrants, seeking
stolen Chrysler parts. When they searched LaPerriere’s home
and outbuildings, the task force confiscated fifty-two boxes of
*
The Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior Circuit Judge of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
1
No. 01-1576 LaPerriere v. UAW 3 4 LaPerriere v. UAW No. 01-1576
Chrysler parts from his home and an additional twenty-three contract, the union would not act on LaPerriere’s grievance,
boxes from his business. and the UAW would not permit an appeal of the decision.1
On June 21, 1994, LaPerriere appeared before the Chrysler On February 11, 1998, LaPerriere sued the UAW in state
Labor Relations Board, where a Chrysler labor relations court, alleging the UAW failed to represent him in his
person informed LaPerriere that it would pursue charges grievance against Chrysler. After removing the case to
against him for theft of company property. LaPerriere’s federal court, the UAW filed a motion to dismiss, claiming
union steward, Mark Hasho, accompanied LaPerriere to the that LaPerriere failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
meeting. Chrysler suspended LaPerriere pending further because he did not appeal the UAW’s decision to withdraw
investigation. Shortly thereafter, Chrysler converted his grievance. The district court denied the UAW's motion.
LaPerriere’s suspension to a dismissal and terminated his The case proceeded to trial, and on May 30, 2000, a jury
employment. The UAW filed a termination grievance on returned a verdict in favor of LaPerriere in the amount of
LaPerrieres behalf. $165,573. The UAW then filed a motion for judgment as a
matter of law or in the alternative a new trial. The district
On November 7, 1994, police officers arrested LaPerriere court denied the motion.
and charged him with several counts of possessing stolen
property. LaPerriere notified Hasho of his arrest. Hasho II. DISCUSSION
advised LaPerriere that the union would place his grievance
on hold pending the result of his criminal action. On A. Exhaustion of Internal Union Remedies
March 24, 1997, after the prosecution rested in his criminal
case, LaPerriere moved for a directed verdict, which the trial The UAW asserts as error the denial of its motion for
court granted. The court dismissed all criminal charges and summary judgment following a jury trial adverse to it.
returned the property confiscated from LaPerriere. Paschal v. Flagstar Bank, 295 F.3d 565, 572 (6th Cir. 2002)
(determining that a party may raise as error a denial of
LaPerriere notified Hasho of the outcome of his criminal summary judgment after a jury trial when the party preserves
matter and requested that his grievance proceed. At the the issue by moving for judgment as a matter of law prior to
UAW's request, LaPerriere provided the UAW with the trial
transcript. The UAW then requested receipts for all the items
confiscated from LaPerriere. LaPerriere acquired various 1
Article 33 o f the UAW ’s constitution guarantees members the right
receipts and submitted them to the UAW. to app eal the actions o f local and international union o fficials. If a
member challenges an international official's action, the member has the
On September 23, 1997, the UAW advised LaPerriere that right to appeal to the International Executive Board (IEB ). In most cases
it had withdrawn his grievance. Hasho advised LaPerriere this results in a hearing at which the member has the right to be
that he should not pursue his grievance. Hasho explained that represented by counsel, produce evidence, and submit a brief. If the
top union leaders had decided to withdraw LaPerriere's member does not timely submit the appeal, the UAW may notify the
appellant that it will not consider the appeal because it is untimely. The
grievance. Further, Hasho commented that contract or no member has the right to appeal that decision to the IEB. If dissatisfied
with the IE B's decision, the member may appeal the decision to the
Convention Appeals Committee (CAC) or the Public Review Board
(PRB ). The CAC consists of elected constitutional conven tion delegates.
The P RB co nsists of independent individuals with no UAW affiliation.
No. 01-1576 LaPerriere v. UAW 5 6 LaPerriere v. UAW No. 01-1576
the verdict and renewing the motion following an adverse appeal his grievance. However, local union officials
verdict); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 50. continually told him it would be useless to appeal because the
top international union officials decided to withdraw his
The UAW argues that the district court erred in denying it grievance.
summary judgment because LaPerriere failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. Generally, a union member must LaPerriere has shown hostility on the part of the local union
exhaust internal union remedies before a member can sue the in advising him not to pursue his grievance further and
union for the breach of the duty of fair representation, unless hostility from the international union, which actually
the member can demonstrate the futility of exhaustion. withdrew his grievance and indicated that it would not pursue
Rogers v. Buena Vista Sch., 2 F.3d 163, 166 (6th Cir. 1993). the matter further. This is not a case where only the local
Relevant factors in the exhaustion analysis include: union or only the international union refused to pursue
(1) whether union officials have shown hostility toward the claims; they both refused. Cf. Hammer v. UAW, 178 F.3d 856member; (2) whether the appeals procedures adequately (7th Cir. 1999) (upholding the district court's finding of
reactivate the grievance or award the “full relief” sought; and failure to exhaust where no showing of hostility existed at
(3) whether delay would occur if the procedures were either the local or international union levels); Monroe, 723
followed. Monroe v. UAW, 723 F.2d 22, 24-25 (6th Cir. F.2d at 24 (affirming denial of claim because the union
1983). If any of these factors are found to exist, the court member only showed hostility at local level). In fact,
may properly excuse the employee’s failure to exhaust. Here, LaPerriere has repeatedly offered to stay the present lawsuit,
the district court determined that LaPerriere met all three if the union would allow him to exhaust his administrative
factors. On review, we conclude that LaPerriere met the first remedies. The union has never accepted this proposal.
factor, hostility, thus making it unnecessary to address the
district court's conclusions favorable to the plaintiff on the While the UAW challenges the district court's finding that
factors of adequate procedures and delay. requiring administrative exhaustion would have been futile,
the United States Supreme Court has held that whether to
In order for hostility to excuse exhaustion, hostility must require exhaustion of intraunion remedies is a matter of
exist at every level of the appeals process. An employee has discretion for the trial court to decide. Clayton v. UAW, 451
a duty to pursue an appeal with the union even when told at U.S. 679, 689 (1981). Here, the factual circumstances
the local level that an appeal would bring no benefits. underlying the exhaustion requirement support the district
Monroe, 723 F.2d at 26. The UAW argues that, at most, court's determination that LaPerriere's further pursuit of union
LaPerriere demonstrated Hasho's comments misled LaPerriere grievances would have been futile. The district court did not
to believe that the union was unwilling to arbitrate err in determining this issue.2
LaPerriere's grievance. Thus, the UAW asserts LaPerriere
failed to show actual hostility by the union. In making this
argument, the UAW claims that the court based its 2
The UAW also claims that the district court sua spon te entered
conclusions solely on the allegations contained in judgment to LaPerriere on the issue of exhaustion. The record does not
LaPerriere’s complaint and affidavit, and ignored Hasho's bear this out. While the district court did deny the UAW summary
contradictory statements. The district court rejected the judgment on the issue of exhau stion, the court's ruling does not
UAW's arguments. Instead, the court explained that union autom atically grant summary judgment to LaPerriere. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
The UA W fails to cite to any place in the record showing the district court
officials were hostile to LaPerriere because he attempted to indep endently entered summary jud gment to LaPerriere.
No. 01-1576 LaPerriere v. UAW 7 8 LaPerriere v. UAW No. 01-1576
B. Judgment as a Matter of Law process. There was sufficient evidence presented at trial
that there were other reasons why [the UAW] withdrew
The UAW next asserts the district court erred in denying it [LaPerriere's] grievance in light of the fact that the State
judgment as a matter of law. The UAW argues that the jury, criminal charges against [LaPerriere] were dismissed and
based on the evidence, could not conclude that the UAW all the property confiscated from [LaPerriere] was
acted in an arbitrary manner in deciding to withdraw returned to [LaPerriere]. [The UAW] has failed to show
LaPerriere's discharge grievance. We review a district court’s that the evidence before the jury was not sufficient to
denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. support its verdict.
Conwood Co. v. United States Tobacco Co., 290 F.3d 768,
781 (6th Cir. 2002). District courts should grant judgment as (App. at 153-54.) On appeal, the UAW reasserts the
a matter of law only if a complete absence of proof exists on argument it made to the jury. The UAW fails to articulate
a material issue in the action, or if no disputed issue of fact how the evidence supports a different conclusion. Sufficient
exists on which reasonable minds could differ. Clark v. proof exists that LaPerriere provided the UAW with
Chrysler Corp., 310 F.3d 461, 479 (6th Cir. 2002). documents which were available, and that the UAW acted
arbitrarily in refusing to pursue LaPerriere's discharge
In the grievance context, the breach of the duty of fair grievance.
representation occurs where the union: (1) conducts itself in
an arbitrary or discriminatory manner, or in bad faith; C. Jury Award
(2) processes the grievance in a careless manner; or
(3) inadequately handles the grievance due to its ignorance of Finally, the UAW contends that the district court erred in
the contract provision. Ryan v. General Motors, 929 F.2d not granting it a new trial on the issue of damages because the
1105, 1109 (6th Cir. 1989). evidence does not support the jury award. Generally, the
grant or denial of a new trial is purely within the discretion of
Here, the jury considered whether the union acted the trial court and will not be reversed except upon a showing
arbitrarily in deciding not to further pursue LaPerriere’s of an abuse of discretion. Whittington v. New Jersey Zinc
claims. The UAW argues that it did not act irrationally Co., 775 F.2d 698, 700 (6th Cir. 1985). The district court
because it decided not to pursue LaPerriere’s claims since he abuses its discretion when we have a definite and firm
failed to provide it with the requested documents. LaPerriere conviction that the court committed a clear error of judgment.
testified that he provided the UAW with all the documents Logan v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 865 F.2d 789, 790 (6th Cir.
that he possessed. The jury found for LaPerriere. 1989). We accept the jury’s verdict if it was reasonably
reached and supported by some competent, credible evidence.
The district court denied the UAW's motion for judgment Anchor v. O’Toole, 94 F.3d 1014, 1021 (6th Cir. 1996). A
as a matter of law, stating: jury verdict will not be set aside or reduced as excessive
unless it is beyond the maximum damages that the jury
Viewing the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party, reasonably could find to be compensatory for a party’s loss.
the Court finds there was sufficient evidence to support Jones v. Wittenberg University, 534 F.2d 1203, 1212 (6th Cir.
the Jury’s finding in favor of [LaPerriere]. [LaPerriere] 1976).
testified at trial that he delivered all the documents to
defense counsel for copying during the discovery
No. 01-1576 LaPerriere v. UAW 9 10 LaPerriere v. UAW No. 01-1576
In denying the UAW’s motion for a new trial on damages, III. CONCLUSION
the district court explained:
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Regarding damages, [the UAW] merely states in a
conclusory fashion that there was no evidence from
which a jury could have determined that [LaPerriere’s]
damages were more than twice what counsel sought. In
response, [LaPerriere] claims he testified at trial that he
was forced to work far more hours to make less money.
[The UAW] has presented no authority which does not
allow a jury to go beyond the damages requested by
counsel. The Court finds that there was sufficient
evidence to support the jury’s award of damages.
(App. at 154-55.) On appeal, the UAW takes the same
position as it did before the district court, that the evidence
did not support the jury award. The UAW maintains that the
record supports a damage award of $73,729. While the
parties agreed to this amount of mitigated lost wages, the
court did not instruct the jury that it could not award more
than this amount.3 The UAW does not point to any case law
to suggest that any error occurred here, and we have found
none to support the union's position. The UAW has failed to
show that the district court abused its discretion in
determining that the jury's award of damages was supported
by competent and credible evidence.
3
It appears that the jury may have considered overtime compensation
in calculating LaPerriere's damages. At trial, LaPerriere testified that
while at Chrysler he worked forty hours a week with little overtime. After
Chrysler terminated him, LaPerriere worked seventy-two hours a week for
less money. Thus, LaPerriere testified that as a result of his termination
from Chrysler he had to work an additional thirty hours each week, and
he still made less money than at Chrysler. The jury may have factored the
overtime LaPerriere would have earned if he worked thirty hours a week
of overtime at Chrysler.