Cabrera v. Service Employees International Union

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided March 30, 2023·No. 2:18-cv-00304·Unknown

Opinion

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

Christensen James & Martin Evan L. James, Esq. Daryl E. Martin, Esq. 7440 W Sahara Ave. Las Vegas, NV 89117 Telephone: (702) 255-1718 Fax: (702) 255-0871 C. Defendant Service Employees International Union (hereinafter “SEIU”) Counsel. Rothner, Segall & Greenstone Glenn Rothner, Esq. Eli Naduris-Weissman, Esq. 510 South Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101-3115 Telephone: (626) 796-7555 Fax: (626) 577-0124 A. Plaintiffs’ Statement. On February 16, 2018, this action was removed to Federal Court pursuant to the doctrine of complete preemption pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 185, Section 301 of the LMRA. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add federal discrimination claims in violation of the ADA. This Court has jurisdiction over the federal claims pursuant to 28 USC § 1331 and §1343, and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 USC §1367. B. Local 1107’s Statements. i. Miller’s Claims. a. Discrimination Claims (First and Tenth Claims for Relief). Jurisdiction over First Claim for Relief exists pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution as the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) is federal statute. Jurisdiction over the Tenth Claim for Relief exists pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1367. b. Retaliation Claims (Second and Eleventh Claims for Relief). Jurisdiction over Second Claim for Relief exists pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution as the ADA is federal statute. Jurisdiction over the Eleventh Claim for Relief exists pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1367. c. Hostile Work Environment Claim (Third Claim for Relief). Jurisdiction over the Third Second Claim for Relief exists pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution as the ADA is federal statute. ii. Alter-Ego. Alter-ego is a legal doctrine and not a claim for relief. Jurisdiction must attach in connection to a claim for relief. C. SEIU’s Statements. i. General Statement of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: SEIU concurs with Local 1107’s statement regarding subject matter jurisdiction, and does not contest that there is subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (“Section 301”), and supplemental jurisdiction, under 29 U.S.C. § 1367, over Plaintiffs’ claims under Nevada law, specifically the Tenth and Eleventh claims asserting violations of N.R.S. §§ 613.330(1) & 613.340(1). A. Plaintiffs’ Statements. This is an action for employment discrimination under state law and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Plaintiffs have also alleged alter-ego liability against SEIU International. The remaining claims are as follows: i. Plaintiff Miller’s Remaining Claims. Claim One – Disability Discrimination in Violation of the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 Claim Two – Retaliation in Violation of the ADA See 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 Claim Three – Disability Harassment/Hostile Work Environment in Violation of the ADA See 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 Claim Ten – Disability Discrimination in Violation of NRS 613.330 Claim Eleven - Disability Discrimination in Violation of NRS 613.340 ii. Plaintiff’s Discrimination Claims. Local 1107 has conceded that Miller’s diabetes constitutes a disability under the ADA, and as such Plaintiff need not prove at trial that she is disabled under the act. Plaintiff will show that she was qualified. Plaintiff will show that she was discriminated against because of her diabetes disability and that she was denied reasonable accommodations required by the ADA and Local 1107’s own policies. iii. Plaintiff’s Retaliation Claims. Local 1107 has conceded that Miller engaged in a protected activity. Plaintiff will establish that she (1) suffered an adverse employment action and (2) that there was a causal connection between the action and the protected activity. iv. Miller’s Harassment/Hostile Work Environment Claim. Plaintiff will seek to establish that she was (1) subject to unwelcome harassment, (2) the harassment was based on her disability, (3) the harassment affected a term, condition or privilege of employment; and (4) the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt, remedial action. v. Damages. The issue of compensatory and punitive damages and mitigation of damages remains to be tried. Punitive damages are available and appropriate for jury consideration for Miller’s First, Tenth and Eleventh Claims for Relief. See NRS 613.432; see also 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981a. vi. Additional Matters. Plaintiffs have alleged alter-ego liability seeking to hold SEIU International jointly and severally liable for all claims alleged herein. The factors Plaintiff will seek to prove are that SEIU and Local 1107 had “1) inter-relation of operations; 2) common vii. management; 3) centralized control of labor relations; and 4) common ownership or financial control.”); see also Childs v. Local 18, Int’l Bhd. of Elec

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

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

Cabrera v. Service Employees International Union (Cabrera v. Service Employees International Union) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related