Confidential
Bench Decision – $0Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Marla A. Brown
(Law Office of Marla A. Brown)
Facts
The plaintiff member of the defendant labor union claimed she lost income after she was placed off-duty from her law enforcement job. The plaintiff had initiated two grievance proceedings against her employer through the union. One grievance alleged that the employer had wrongfully failed to compensate the plaintiff for seven days spent awaiting assignment to a temporary position which would accomodate her medical restrictions. The plaintiff was under a doctor's care for stress resulting from job related causes, and had been off of work for approximately two years. The employer maintained a special program which arranged for such assignments, and claimed that the plaintiff had refused an assignment resulting in the loss of time, and that due to the severe nature of the plaintiff's restrictions, it took several days to find another acceptable position. A position was found, and the plaintiff began working there. The employer denied the grievance at four different management levels. The union, through its grievance representative, sought arbitration, the last step in the process, but the union's board of directors has not approved funding for arbitration. The plaintiff continued to work in her temporary assignment and approximately six weeks later initiated a second grievance, this time in opposition to an order from the supervisor at another unit for the plaintiff to stay away from those premises. This grievance was also denied at all levels, up to arbitration. The union has not agreed to arbitrate this grievance. In August 1995, the plaintiff's medical restrictions increased, rendering her unqualified for the temporary assignment, and resulting in her being placed off-duty and sent home. The plaintiff inquired about initiating another grievance but was informed that since the same issue as her first grievance was involved, it would be resolved at the same time. The plaintiff has not worked since August 1995 due to her medical restrictions. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on breach of contract and breach of the duty of fair representation theories of recovery. The defendant moved for nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff's case.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a settlement demand of $150,000. The defendant made a settlement offer of $1,500.
Specials in Evidence
$70,000 $70,000 $680,000 $680,000
Other Information
The decision was rendered approximately one year and ten months after the case was filed. Motion for summary adjudication was granted in favor of the defendant on additional issues of breach of contract for refusing to fund representation in other litigation matters. Per the defendant, the plaintiff's discrimination claim was dismissed.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390