Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-06-2023
Case Style:
Duane Porter, et al. v. Pipefitters Association, et al.
Case Number: 1:12-cv-09844
Judge: Sara L. Ellis
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Cook County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Aimee Elizabeth Delaney, Linda Kay Horras, Linda Kay Horras
Description: Chicago, Illinois civil rights lawyers represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendants on employment discrimination theories.
<
Plaintiffs Duane Porter, Kenneth Black, Ronald Bouie, Ricky Brown, Samuel Clark, Frank Craddieth, Donald Gayles, Steve Wilson, and Jeffrey Pickett, African American journeyman pipefitters who either belong or belonged to Defendant Pipefitters Association Local Union 597 ("Local 597"), claim that they and other African American pipefitters worked comparatively fewer hours than their non-African American counterparts due to Local 597's inequitable job assignment systems. They filed this suit against Local 597, alleging intentional and disparate impact discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and breach of Local 597's duty of fair representation under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 158(b), for failing to represent the interests of all of its members. In addition, Plaintiffs bring individual retaliation claims. This Court certified Plaintiffs' class action under Federal Rule of Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), and Local 597 now moves for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs' claims. Because Plaintiffs have demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact with regard to their intentional discrimination claims, the Court denies Local 597's motion for summary judgment with regard to Plaintiffs' Title VII disparate treatment claims, § 1981 claim, and one of Plaintiffs' LMRA claims (regarding the creation of the Referral Hall policy).
Outcome: The Court granted Local 597's motion for summary judgment [139] with regard to Plaintiffs' Title VII disparate impact claims, two of their LMRA claims (regarding Local 597's enforcement of contractor compliance with the Referral Hall policy and Local 597's grievance policy), and their retaliation claims. The Court denies the motion with regard to Plaintiffs' Title VII intentional discrimination claims, § 1981 claim, and one of their LMRA claims (regarding the creation of the Referral Hall policy). Additionally, the Court denies Local 597's motion to strike.
The outcome of this case is unclear.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: