Cabrera v. Service Employees International Union

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedMarch 30, 2023
Docket2:18-cv-00304
StatusUnknown

This text of Cabrera v. Service Employees International Union (Cabrera v. Service Employees International Union) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cabrera v. Service Employees International Union, (D. Nev. 2023).

Opinion

1 CHRISTENSEN JAMES & MARTIN 2 EVAN L. JAMES, ESQ. (7760) DARYL E. MARTIN, ESQ. (6735) 3 7440 W. Sahara Avenue 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 Telephone: (702) 255-1718 5 Facsimile: (702) 255-0871 6 Email: elj@cjmlv.com, dem@cjmlv.com Attorneys for Defendants Nevada Service Employees 7 Union, Luisa Blue, and Martin Manteca 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 JAVIER CABRERA, an individual; Case No.: 2:18-cv-00304-RFB-DJA 11 DEBORAH MILLER, an individual, CHERIE MANCINI, an individual; 12 NEVADA SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION STAFF UNION (“NSEUSU”), AMENDED JOINT PRETRIAL 13 an unincorporated association, ORDER 14 Plaintiffs, 15 vs. 16 SERVICE EMPLOYEES 17 INTERNATIONAL UNION, a nonprofit cooperative corporation; LUISA BLUE, 18 in her official capacity as Trustee of 19 Local 1107; MARTIN MANTECA, in his official capacity as Deputy Trustee of 20 Local 1107; MARY K. HENRY, in her 21 official capacity as Union President; CLARK COUNTY PUBLIC 22 EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION dba NEVADA SERVICE EMPLOYEES 23 UNION aka SEIU LOCAL 1107, a 24 nonprofit cooperative corporation; CAROL NIETERS, an individual; DOES 25 1-20; and ROE CORPORATIONS 1-20, 26 inclusive, 27 Defendants. 1 After pretrial proceedings in this case, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED in accordance with Chamber Practices: 3 I. THE NAMES, LAW FIRMS, ADDRESSES, AND TELEPHONE AND 4 FAX NUMBERS OF TRIAL COUNSEL. 5 A. Plaintiff’s Counsel. 6 Michael J. Mcavoyamaya, Esq. 4539 Paseo Del Ray 7 Las Vegas, Nevada 89121 8 Telephone: (702) 299-5083 9 B. Defendant Clark County Public Employees Association dba Nevada 10 Service Employees Union dba Local 1107 (hereinafter “Local 1107”) 11 Counsel. Note, the caption misnames this defendant. The correct name of 12 the defendant is Nevada Service Employees Union.

13 Christensen James & Martin 14 Evan L. James, Esq. Daryl E. Martin, Esq. 15 7440 W Sahara Ave. 16 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Telephone: (702) 255-1718 17 Fax: (702) 255-0871 18 C. Defendant Service Employees International Union (hereinafter “SEIU”) 19 Counsel. 20 Rothner, Segall & Greenstone Glenn Rothner, Esq. 21 Eli Naduris-Weissman, Esq. 22 510 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101-3115 23 Telephone: (626) 796-7555 24 Fax: (626) 577-0124 25 II. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. 26 A. Plaintiffs’ Statement. 27 1 On February 16, 2018, this action was removed to Federal Court pursuant to 2 the doctrine of complete preemption pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 185, Section 301 of the 3 LMRA. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add federal discrimination claims in 4 violation of the ADA. This Court has jurisdiction over the federal claims pursuant to 5 28 USC § 1331 and §1343, and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims 6 pursuant to 28 USC §1367. 7 B. Local 1107’s Statements. 8 i. Miller’s Claims. 9 a. Discrimination Claims (First and Tenth Claims for Relief). 10 Jurisdiction over First Claim for Relief exists pursuant to Article 11 III of the United States Constitution as the Americans with 12 Disabilities Act (“ADA”) is federal statute. Jurisdiction over the 13 Tenth Claim for Relief exists pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1367. 14 b. Retaliation Claims (Second and Eleventh Claims for 15 Relief). Jurisdiction over Second Claim for Relief exists pursuant 16 to Article III of the United States Constitution as the ADA is 17 federal statute. Jurisdiction over the Eleventh Claim for Relief 18 exists pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1367. 19 c. Hostile Work Environment Claim (Third Claim for Relief). 20 Jurisdiction over the Third Second Claim for Relief exists 21 pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution as the 22 ADA is federal statute. 23 ii. Alter-Ego. Alter-ego is a legal doctrine and not a claim for relief. 24 Jurisdiction must attach in connection to a claim for relief. 25 C. SEIU’s Statements. 26 i. General Statement of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: SEIU concurs 27 with Local 1107’s statement regarding subject matter jurisdiction, 1 and does not contest that there is subject matter jurisdiction over 2 Plaintiffs’ claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 3 section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 4 185 (“Section 301”), and supplemental jurisdiction, under 29 5 U.S.C. § 1367, over Plaintiffs’ claims under Nevada law, 6 specifically the Tenth and Eleventh claims asserting violations of 7 N.R.S. §§ 613.330(1) & 613.340(1). 8 III. STATEMENTS OF ISSUES REMAINING TO BE TRIED. 9 A. Plaintiffs’ Statements. 10 This is an action for employment discrimination under state law and the 11 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Plaintiffs have also alleged alter-ego 12 liability against SEIU International. The remaining claims are as follows: 13 i. Plaintiff Miller’s Remaining Claims. 14 Claim One – Disability Discrimination in Violation of the ADA. See 42 15 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 16 Claim Two – Retaliation in Violation of the ADA See 42 U.S.C. § 12101 17 et seq; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 18 Claim Three – Disability Harassment/Hostile Work Environment in 19 Violation of the ADA See 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 20 Claim Ten – Disability Discrimination in Violation of NRS 613.330 21 Claim Eleven - Disability Discrimination in Violation of NRS 613.340 22 ii. Plaintiff’s Discrimination Claims. Local 1107 has conceded that 23 Miller’s diabetes constitutes a disability under the ADA, and as such 24 Plaintiff need not prove at trial that she is disabled under the act. Plaintiff 25 will show that she was qualified. Plaintiff will show that she was 26 discriminated against because of her diabetes disability and that she was 27 1 denied reasonable accommodations required by the ADA and Local 2 1107’s own policies. 3 iii. Plaintiff’s Retaliation Claims. Local 1107 has conceded that 4 Miller engaged in a protected activity. Plaintiff will establish that she (1) 5 suffered an adverse employment action and (2) that there was a causal 6 connection between the action and the protected activity. 7 iv. Miller’s Harassment/Hostile Work Environment Claim. Plaintiff 8 will seek to establish that she was (1) subject to unwelcome harassment, 9 (2) the harassment was based on her disability, (3) the harassment 10 affected a term, condition or privilege of employment; and (4) the 11 employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to 12 take prompt, remedial action. 13 v. Damages. The issue of compensatory and punitive damages and 14 mitigation of damages remains to be tried. Punitive damages are 15 available and appropriate for jury consideration for Miller’s First, Tenth 16 and Eleventh Claims for Relief.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cabrera v. Service Employees International Union, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabrera-v-service-employees-international-union-nvd-2023.