United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
F. KENNEY, JUDGE
the Court is Defendant Transport Workers Local #234 's
Second Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim (ECF
No. 14) and Plaintiffs Response (ECF No. 15).
se Plaintiff Angelique Jenkins worked for SEPTA as a bus
driver and train operator. See generally ECF No. 2.
While working as a bus driver, Jenkins entered into a
"Last Chance Agreement," which, according to
Jenkins, provided that she was subject to immediate
discharge, grievance, and arbitration if "charged with
committing an infraction for which discipline is
justified." Id. at 7. In March 2019, SEPTA
discharged Jenkins for violating the terms of the Last Chance
Agreement by opening the train doors on the wrong side.
Id. Jenkins, however, alleges that she was no longer
subject to the Last Chance Agreement and that her termination
resulted from her decision to run for Union President.
Id. at 6.
to the Complaint, Jenkins decided to run for Union President
in 2018. Id. at 8-9. Jenkins informed her
supervisors of this decision in a letter, "mentioned
[it] to several bosses," and posted about it on
Facebook. Id. Jenkins alleges that she was later
contacted by union officials and "[b]ig bosses"
asking her not to run. Id. at 9.
SEPTA charged Jenkins with opening the doors on the wrong
side in 2019, Jenkins' business agent initially issued a
notice of investigation and a verbal warning. Id.
Soon after, Jenkins' assistant director discovered that
she was subject to a Last Chance Agreement, and, as a result,
Jenkins was terminated. Id. at 7.
alleges that she was terminated "prior to grievance
procedures" and that she should have only received a
verbal warning because she was no longer subject to the Last
Chance Agreement. Id. at 7-8. According to Jenkins,
she "walked off [her] [Last Chance Agreement]" and
had a good performance record. See Id. at 8.
the fact that her business agent and assistant director
"were exclusive and have been friends for over 20
years" presents a "strong conflict of interest
concerning influence over another." Id. At a
hearing, Jenkins claims her business agent "told the
hearing officer I'm going to say a few things, but
[Jenkins is] going to represent herself." Id.
filed this Complaint against Defendant asserting federal
question subject matter jurisdiction under the
Labor-Management Relations Act and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as codified, 42 U.S.C §§ 2000e
to 2000e-17 (race, color, gender, religion, national origin)
("Title VII"). ECF No. 2 at 2-4. On the Court's
preprinted complaint form, Jenkins alleged that Defendant
violated Title VII by (1) terminating her employment, (2)
retaliating against her, and (3) breaching its duty of fair
representation. Id. at 5-6.
what the Court can decipher, Jenkins alleges that Defendant
discriminated and retaliated against her because of her
decision to run for Union President and breached its duty of
fair representation because her business agent and assistant
director's friendship created a conflict of interest. ECF
No. 2 at 6, 8.
moved to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. See
generally ECF No. 14. Defendant argues that Jenkins (1)
has no claim under Title VII against the union because
SEPTA-not Defendant-terminated her and (2) the Complaint does
not include sufficient legal and factual basis for a breach
of its duty of fair representation. Id. at 2. For
the following reasons, the Court will grant Defendant's