Beck-Pell v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 100

CourtDistrict Court, D. Maryland
DecidedAugust 15, 2019
Docket8:17-cv-02329
StatusUnknown

This text of Beck-Pell v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 100 (Beck-Pell v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 100) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beck-Pell v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 100, (D. Md. 2019).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Southern Division

ROBIN BECK-PELL, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * Case No.: PWG-17-2329

SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL * #100, * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Robin Beck-Pell, who is proceeding without counsel, is an African-American, female, sheet metal worker over the age of 40 who was a member of the Sheet Metal Workers Local #100 (“Local 100” or the “Union”). Am. Compl. 6, ECF No. 5. She believed that contractors were hiring workers in other classes—younger workers, male workers, and workers who were not African-American or Black. Id. She complained to Local 100 about this perceived discrimination, but Local 100 did not act on her behalf. Id. She filed suit, alleging race, color, sex, and age discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634 (“ADEA”), as well as breach of contract. Compl. 4–6, ECF No. 1; see Am. Compl.1

1 Beck-Pell also checked the box for discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112–12117 (“ADA”), on her Complaint, but did not provide any basis for this claim in her Amended Complaint or Opposition. Additionally, in her Opposition, she states that her discrimination claims arise under Title VII and the ADEA. Pl.’s Opp’n 1. Thus, to the extent Beck-Pell’s pleadings include an ADA claim, it is dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 8(a)(2); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). Ms. Beck- Pell also listed “breach of contract” in her original pleading, Compl. 5, but I cannot discern a Now pending is the Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 40, that Local 100 filed.2 Because Ms. Beck-Pell cannot prevail on any of her claims, I will grant Defendant’s motion. Factual Background3

“Local 100 is a labor organization that negotiates and enforces collective bargaining agreements covering sheet metal construction workers [both apprentices and journeymen (who have completed their apprenticeships)] in Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and several counties in West Virginia.” LaBille Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 40-3 (Declaration of President and Business Manager of Local 100); see Pl.’s Opp’n 2. Local 100 “is affiliated with the International Association and is governed by its [International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers] Constitution and Ritual” (“Constitution and Ritual”). LaBille Decl. ¶ 30;

see Const. & Ritual, ECF No. 40-3, at 106. To assist its members in obtaining employment, Local 100 operates a referral system. Local 100’s system is a nonexclusive referral system, which means

breach of contract claim in the narrative she provided in her Amended Complaint, Am. Compl. 6, and neither party discussed breach of contract in briefing Defendant’s motion. Accordingly, insofar as Beck-Pell included a breach of contract claim in her pleadings, it also is dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 8(a)(2); Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678–79. 2 The parties fully briefed the motion. ECF Nos. 40-1, 43, 44. A hearing is not necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6. Plaintiff’s Opposition includes two pages of a “Memorandum,” Pl.’s Opp’n 1–2, three pages of an unsigned “Declaration,” id. at 3–5, one page of “Summary Argument,” id. at 6, an unsigned “Verification” in which she “declare[d] under penalty of perjury that the facts stated in [her] foregoing response to Defendant’s Interrogatories Request are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief,” id. at 7, and a Certificate of Service, id. at 8. Because neither the Declaration nor the Verification is signed under penalty of perjury (or otherwise), the Declaration does not constitute an affidavit or declaration for evidentiary purposes. I will consider it as part of Plaintiff’s Opposition, however, and I note that, even if it were sworn, it would not create a genuine dispute of material facts, as the discussion in this Memorandum Opinion shows. I will refer to these filings collectively as “Plaintiff’s Opposition” and cite pages using the numbers assigned on the electronic case filing system. 3 To decide Local 100’s Motion for Summary Judgment, I consider the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Beck-Pell as the non-moving party, drawing all justifiable inferences in her favor. Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 585–86 (2009). that any member, other than an apprentice, has the right to solicit a job with any local or out-of-town contractor within the jurisdiction of Local 100 regardless of the member’s position on the unemployment list. Likewise, any signatory contractor, whether local or out-of-town, has the right to offer any member of Local 100 a job regardless of the member’s position on the unemployment list. Signatory contractors also can fire from any source without regard to the referral list. Upon lay off, Local 100 members sign an unemployment list maintained by Local 100. Local 100 then sends that list out each Friday to its signatory contractors, and the contractors are free to either hire from the list or from other sources. . . . A member’s spot on the unemployment list rises when individuals above them on the list notify the union that they have been hired. Upon being laid off, members return to the bottom of the list. LaBille Decl. ¶¶ 5–6, 24. While Local 100 will “do what they can to assist members in obtaining work,” Local 100 “members have the ultimate responsibility for obtaining their own employment with one of Local 100’s signatory contractors. And Local 100’s signatory contractors are ultimately responsible for making hiring decisions.” Id. ¶¶ 9–10. Robin Beck-Pell completed her sheet metal work apprenticeship and became a sheet metal mechanic in 2001 or 2002. Beck-Pell Dep. 26:16–27:2, ECF No. 40-4. At the time, she already was a member of the Local 100. See Member Hr. Listing, ECF No. 40-3, at 16. “In 2004 [she] was laid off, for what [she] believed to be age and race discrimination.” Pl.’s Opp’n 3, ¶ 2. She filed an administrative complaint with the EEOC and received a Notice of Right to Sue but did not pursue the matter further “because [she] went back to work.” Id. Since January 2010,4 when she completed her job assignment with Dynamic Systems, Inc. at the National Ball Park, Beck-Pell has been seeking Local 100’s assistance in procuring work. Am. Compl. 6; Member Hr. Listing, ECF No. 40-3, at 12. She “put [her] name on the [Union’s]

4 Ms. Beck-Pell claims that she began seeking a new position in 2009, but the Member Hour Listing shows that her unemployment did not begin until January 2010. Member Hr. Listing, ECF No. 40-3, at 12. out-of-work list,” and she has “called and [gone] out on Job sites to look for work,” but without success. Am. Compl. 6; see Pl.’s Opp’n 3, ¶ 3. She claims, without elaboration, that “[t]he [unemployment] list that the union has is not accurate.” Pl.’s Opp’n 4, ¶ 8.

Ms.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Barrow v. New Orleans Steamship Ass'n
10 F.3d 292 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ricci v. DeStefano
557 U.S. 557 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Elizabeth F. Smith v. First Union National Bank
202 F.3d 234 (First Circuit, 2000)
Oakley Baldwin v. City of Greensboro
714 F.3d 828 (Fourth Circuit, 2013)
Jones v. Calvert Group, Ltd.
551 F.3d 297 (Fourth Circuit, 2009)
Cole v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD.
798 F. Supp. 2d 739 (D. Maryland, 2011)
Langerman v. Thompson
155 F. Supp. 2d 490 (D. Maryland, 2001)
Byrd v. the Baltimore Sun Co.
279 F. Supp. 2d 662 (D. Maryland, 2003)
Foster v. University of Maryland-Eastern Shore
787 F.3d 243 (Fourth Circuit, 2015)
Stanley Penley v. McDowell County Board of Ed.
876 F.3d 646 (Fourth Circuit, 2017)
Bader v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n
113 F. Supp. 3d 990 (N.D. Illinois, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Beck-Pell v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beck-pell-v-sheet-metal-workers-local-100-mdd-2019.