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.
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 856 member; (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.