By: Loyd Willaford and Matt Baker
In Peeples v. City of Detroit, eleven firefighters brought a lawsuit against the City and their Union, arguing that they were laid off for racially discriminatory reasons. The firefighters had been improperly laid off due to a misreading of the CBA by the City. When the firefighter’s Union notified the City of its mistake, the firefighters were reinstated. However, they argue that the decision to lay them off resulted not from a contract dispute, but from racial animus. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed their claims against both the City and the Union.
The eleven plaintiffs in the case were firefighters for the Detroit Fire Department. Ten of the eleven plaintiffs are black, and one is Hispanic. The City of Detroit had announced that there would be layoffs as part of a reduction in force. They laid off the firefighters in reverse order of departmental seniority (how long they had been with the Department). However, the language of the CBA suggested that total city seniority (how long they had been employed by the City, in any fashion) should govern the layoffs, not departmental seniority. The firefighter’s Union filed a grievance with the City, and the plaintiffs were reinstated with back-pay. They had been without work for about 3 months.
The plaintiffs argued that, because they had more seniority than some Caucasian firefighters, they were laid off due to racial animus. They filed a Title VII complaint against the City and the Union. The City contended that the layoffs had been due to a wrong interpretation of the CBA, with no racial implications. The Union argued that it had represented the plaintiffs in good faith and they had been reinstated.
The court held that the plaintiffs had not offered any direct evidence of racial animus by the City:
The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ assertion that direct evidence supports their discrimination claims because the only evidence that Plaintiffs direct the Court to constitute inadmissible hearsay. In addition, even if the statements were admissible, they do not appear to be “direct evidence” (ie., that which requires no inferences) of a discriminatory motive on the part of the City in any event.
In addition, the Plaintiffs could provide no evidence that their reinstatement and back-pay was insufficient. The Plaintiffs’ lack of evidence doomed their case, as the court held that both the City and the Union had good-faith reasons for taking the actions they did. Without evidence of bias, the Plaintiffs could not prevail.
This case illustrates the difficulty of successfully suing where there is no direct evidence of discrimination and no damages. The fact that the firefighter were recalled to duty and paid back pay, made this case very difficult. In addition, the case illustrates the importance of gathering evidence and complying with the court’s procedural requirement. The firefighter’s counsel failed to provide key evidence to the Court that might have proven their case. Finally, the case illustrates the high bar faced by members who sue their union for a breach of the duty of fair representation. The firefighters here were unable to show that the union did not obtain all the back pay they were entitled to.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Racial Discrimination.**
