Fillmore v. AT & T Mobility Services LLC

Citations: 140 F. Supp. 3d 1; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143473; 2015 WL 6407183Docket: Civil Action No. 2015-0661

Court: District Court, District of Columbia; October 22, 2015; Federal District Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Brian David Fillmore, a pro se plaintiff, worked for AT&T Mobility Services LLC from early 2011 until his termination in early 2014 and has filed a lawsuit against AT&T and CWA Local 2336, alleging age discrimination. Although AT&T has not been served, CWA Local 2336 has moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, arguing that Fillmore has not stated a valid claim. The court agrees with the union's position regarding the insufficiency of the allegations and will dismiss the union without prejudice.

Fillmore's employment history includes a promotion from Sales Support Representative (SSR) to Financial Service Representative (FSR) shortly after his hire. He transferred to a different AT&T location in March 2012. In May 2013, he was mandated to attend counseling due to performance issues related to inventory management, with a warning that failure to improve could lead to dismissal. In August 2013, AT&T announced layoffs affecting FSR and some SSR positions set for January 2014. The union informed employees that those facing discipline would be treated as if they had clean records for job applications.

Fillmore took short-term disability leave in August and returned in October 2013, only to face further inventory management issues. He raised concerns about the hiring of an external candidate for an SSR position while he was at risk of layoff, leading to his suspension without pay on November 15, 2013. He filed a grievance with the union regarding this situation, though the specifics of the grievance remain unclear. Although the complaint does not explicitly state that he was terminated, a document from the D.C. Department of Employment Services indicates he was fired on January 23, 2014, due to allegations of "fraudulently altering phone counts."

The Complaint alleges two counts of age discrimination: one against AT&T and another against Local 2336. The claim against Local 2336 is based on Fillmore's suspension without pay and his grievance filing with a union representative, Terrence, who allegedly failed to act. Fillmore's age, 48, is only revealed in his Opposition. The union has filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal if the complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court must accept the factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, recognizing that detailed factual allegations are not necessary but must be sufficient to imply a plausible claim for relief. The Court can consider the complaint's contents, attached documents, and judicially noticeable facts. Pro se plaintiffs are given considerable leeway in their pleadings, and the Court may overlook some technical deficiencies. The claim against the union appears to be based on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits labor organizations from discriminating against members based on age.

To establish an ADEA claim against a union, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the union breached its duty of fair representation due to discriminatory intent. The case law requires that while a plaintiff does not need to explicitly state that actions were motivated by race or age, they must provide sufficient facts to allow for an inference of discrimination. In this situation, the plaintiff's sole assertion is that union official Terrence Richardson failed to act, which is insufficient to prove a breach of fair representation or to link that inaction to age discrimination. Consequently, the court finds there is no evidence of discriminatory animus or facts to support such an inference, leading to the dismissal of the ADEA claim against the union. Although age-discrimination claims are taken seriously, the court emphasizes it cannot manufacture claims from insufficient allegations. The dismissal is without prejudice, as the court cannot conclude that additional facts could not potentially remedy the deficiencies in the plaintiff's claims. An order reflecting this decision will be issued.