A union can face discrimination claims for pressuring an employer to fire a worker.

Record source: CourtListener

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PENDLETON DIVISION SAMANTHA WARD, an individual Case No. 2:25-cv-00734-HL Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. MORROW COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT, a local government body, EMILY ROBERTS REYNOLDS, an individual, and OREGON AFSCME COUNCIL 75, a nonprofit entity, Defendants. _________________________________________ HALLMAN, United States Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff Samantha Ward brings the present action against Defendants Morrow County Health District (“MCHD”), her former employer; MCHD CEO Emily Roberts Reynolds; and Oregon American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 75 (“AFSCME”). This matter now comes before the Court on AFSCME’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. ECF 43.1 For the reasons discussed below, AFSCME’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against AFSCME are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint if she believes she can cure the deficiencies identified herein. DISCUSSION I. Background For the purposes of this motion, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded material facts alleged in the complaint, see Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956, 971 (9th Cir. 2018), and recites those facts relevant to Plaintiff’s claims against AFSCME here. Plaintiff brings this action after she was terminated by MCHD from her paramedic lead position at the Irrigon, Oregon station, alleging that she was fired because she was suing her former employer—the Benton County Fire District No. 1 (“BCFD No. 1”)—for gender discrimination. First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ 10-78, ECF 33. MCHD hired Plaintiff as a paramedic on or about March 18, 2024. Id. at ¶ 10. During Plaintiff’s employment with MCHD, the paramedics were not unionized, although other MCHD staff were represented by AFSCME. Id. at ¶ 19. Discussions regarding paramedics unionizing were ongoing and involved consideration of alternative union representation, including the International Association of Fire Fighters (“IAFF”), of which Plaintiff was a member. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 20. In late November 2024, Plaintiff contacted AFSCME union leader Kimberlee Roberts regarding questions colleagues had about AFSCME membership and to connect her colleagues with Haley Wolford Davis, AFSCME’s bargaining unit representative. Id. at ¶ 21. Roberts then met with the AFSCME Local’s president, Jesse Reynen, regarding Plaintiff’s communication. Id. 1 This Court concludes that this matter can be resolved without oral argument. at ¶¶ 21, 29. In December 2024, Plaintiff attended a meeting in which Emily Roberts Reynolds, MCHD’s CEO, indicated that AFSCME intended to incorporate MCHD paramedics into AFSCME’s existing union contract with MCHD and that MCHD did not plan to oppose the incorporation. Id. at ¶ 22. Reynolds advised Plaintiff not to express a preference for which union to join based on Plaintiff’s paramedic lead position. Id. At the end of December 2024, Plaintiff received multiple gender discrimination complaints about a paramedic assigned to the Irrigon station and reported those complaints up the chain of command, with MCHD thereafter initiating an investigation. Id. at ¶¶ 24-27. Plaintiff was informed that her participation in the investigation was protected activity and attended a Zoom interview on January 10, 2025. Id. at ¶¶ 38-39. During the interview, Plaintiff noted that Reynen was within earshot and paused the conversation until his exit. Id. at ¶ 39. Throughout January 2025, MCHD paramedics continued discussing whether to join AFSCME. Id. at ¶ 28. During that time, Reynen was communicating with AFSCME about the paramedics joining the union and told Wolford Davis that Plaintiff would not join AFSCME because she believed IAFF was the better option and had been discussing the merits of the options with other MCHD employees. Id. at ¶¶ 29-30. On or about January 4, 2025, Plaintiff learned about an email Reynen sent to Reynolds in which he referenced Plaintiff’s lawsuit against BCFD No. 1 and wrote “I would be careful of her” and “she seems sue happy.” Id. at ¶¶ 31-33. Days later, after learning about Reynen’s email, Roberts contacted AFSCME representative Darren Holden, who indicated that Reynen’s email was a fireable offense. Id. at ¶ 37. On January 29, 2025, MCHD terminated Plaintiff at Reynolds’ direction. Id. at ¶ 45. Reynolds contended that Plaintiff’s termination was due to her conduct regarding AFSCME. Id. at ¶ 76. At some point between January 24 and January 29, 2025, Wolford Davis spoke with Reynolds about MCHD’s paramedics not yet voting to join AFSCME and expressed that Plaintiff was resistant to joining AFSCME, preferring IAFF. Id. at ¶ 44. In a memorandum dated January 30, 2025, Reynolds recounted Wolford Davis sharing with her that MCHD employees had reported that Plaintiff continued engaging staff in dialogue regarding AFSCME, discouraged staff from paying dues, encouraged paramedics to not consider joining AFSCME, and made defamatory comments about Wolford Davis personally. Id. at ¶ 73. Reynolds recounted Wolford Davis explaining that AFSCME considered Plaintiff’s behavior unfair labor practices due to her paramedic lead position and that staff reported fearing Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff had previously been instructed not to engage in discussions with staff regarding unionization. Id. at ¶ 77. The memorandum further states that Reynolds met with MCHD’s human resources director and compliance officer to discuss Wolford Davis’ concerns, deemed those concerns credible based on Plaintiff’s past admission of “engaging in inappropriate conversations with AFSCME covered employees regarding AFSCME representation[,]” and decided to terminate Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 76. Plaintiff filed the present action on May 5, 2025. Id. at ¶ 65. Later that month, Wolford Davis emailed, among others, AFSCME Executive Director Joe Baessler and stated that Reynen had not emailed Reynolds regarding Plaintiff’s lawsuit against BCFD No. 1 and had instead spoken about Plaintiff’s anti-AFSCME behavior with Wolford Davis, who then spoke to Reynolds. Id. at ¶ 66. Wolford Davis wrote in a separate email to AFSCME 75 President Fred Yungbluth Jr. that Plaintiff had talked specifically to paramedics about how they should unionize with a different union and talked with AFSCME employees about leaving AFSCME for another union. Id. at ¶ 67. On May 23, 2025, Baessler, Yungbluth, and Reynen signed and sent an email, drafted in part by Wolford Davis, presenting AFSCME’s version of the facts underlying Plaintiff’s lawsuit against MCHD.2 Id. at ¶ 68. That email stated that Plaintiff was “an unrepresented supervisor and not a union member” and that MCHD’s decision to terminate Plaintiff “was not made in coordination with, or at the request of, any AFSCME official[.]” Id. at ¶¶ 69, 71. In the FAC, Plaintiff brings a claim against AFSCME for a violation of ORS § 659A.030, alleging that AFSCME aided, incited,

Official opinion source