Sheila Pierce v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals , 470 F. App'x 649 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHEILA PIERCE, No. 10-17742
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-03837-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS;
LOCAL 29, OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL-CIO & CLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Sheila Pierce appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
her action alleging that her union breached its duty of fair representation in
violation of the National Labor Relations Act, and that her employer breached its
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) in violation of § 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Bliesner v. Commc’n Workers of Am., 464 F.3d 910, 913 (9th Cir.
2006), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in Pierce’s hybrid fair
representation/§ 301action because Pierce failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether her union’s conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in
bad faith, or as to whether her employer breached the “just cause” provision of its
CBA when it terminated Pierce’s employment. See id. at 913-14 (for a hybrid fair
representation/§ 301 claim, the plaintiff must show both that the union breached its
duty of fair representation and that the employer breached the CBA); Peterson v.
Kennedy, 771 F.2d 1244, 1253 (9th Cir. 1985) (“We have emphasized that,
because a union balances many collective and individual interests in deciding
whether and to what extent it will pursue a particular grievance, courts should
accord substantial deference to a union’s decisions regarding such matters.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Pierce’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-17742