Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United Government Security Officers of America, International Union Local 22 v. Tennessee Valley Authority

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division

March 31, 2017

UNITED GOVERNMENT SECURITY OFFICERS OF AMERICA, INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 22, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY and WILLIAM D. JOHNSON, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This case comes before the Court on the motion to dismiss of defendants William D. Johnson and the Tennessee Valley Authority. (Doc. 8). The TVA operates nuclear power facilities in Alabama and Tennessee. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 4, 9). Mr. Johnson is the TVA's President and CEO. (Doc. 1 ¶5). The plaintiffs are two nonprofit labor organizations, United Government Security Officers of America, International Union and United Government Security Officers of America, International Union Local 22. (Doc. 1, ¶¶1-2). For clarity, the Court adopts the parties' practice of referring to the labor organizations collectively as “Plaintiffs.”

         In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims against the TVA and Mr. Johnson for breach of contract and promissory fraud. (Doc. 1). In their motion to dismiss, the TVA and Mr. Johnson argue that both claims are time-barred, that federal law preempts the promissory fraud claim, and that the claims against Mr. Johnson in his official capacity are duplicative of the claims against TVA. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Rule 12(b)(6) enables a defendant to move to dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of a complaint against the “liberal pleading standards set forth by Rule 8(a)(2).” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). A court may grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss when the allegations in a complaint “on their face . . . show that an affirmative defense bars recovery on the claim.” Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1022 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc). When evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a district court accepts as true the allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Brophy v. Jiangbo Pharms. Inc., 781 F.3d 1296, 1301 (11th Cir. 2015).

         FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs are the exclusive bargaining unit representatives for the security officers who work at the TVA's nuclear power facilities. (Doc. 1, ¶ 9). Plaintiffs and the TVA are parties to a collective bargaining agreement. (Doc. 1, ¶ 10; Doc. 9-1).

         In February 2012, Plaintiffs and the TVA entered into a memorandum of understanding in which the parties “agree[d] to discontinue the current pay structure and progression plan (within-grade rates)” in the collective bargaining agreement “and establish a new, four-classification pay structure.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 10; Doc. 1-1, p. 1). Plaintiffs allege that the MOU provided that “wages for fiscal years 2014 through 2016 would be renegotiated in 2013, and based off of the ‘salary and wage data from utilities with comparable nuclear security work in the nuclear regulatory commission's region 2 geographic area.'” (Doc. 1, ¶11). The parties agreed that the collected data would “be used as the basis for negotiations of the basic salary rate for the Senior [Nuclear Security Officer] position.” (Doc. 1-1, p. 2). The parties also agreed that the “new overtime rule and the new classification structure” would be “considered to be modifications to the collective bargaining agreement.” (Doc. 1-1, p. 3).

         Plaintiffs allege that in 2013 the TVA violated the MOU when the TVA “failed and/or refused to renegotiate wages to apply the salary and wage data for NRC Region 2, as previously agreed, and forced the Plaintiffs to accept wages for security officer employees that were substantially less [than] the wages for comparable work in NRC Region 2.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 13). Plaintiffs state that “TVA breached [the MOU] by failing to renegotiate wages for years 2014 through 2016 based on wage data for NRC Region 2.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 16).

         ANALYSIS

         I. Plaintiffs' Official Capacity Claims Against Mr. Johnson

         Mr. Johnson argues that the Court should dismiss the claims against him in his official capacity because those claims are duplicative of Plaintiffs' claims against the TVA. (Doc. 9, p. 9). Plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the claims against Mr. Johnson. (Doc. 17, pp. 7-8). Therefore, the Court will dismiss those claims.

         II. Promissory Fraud Claim

         Plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of their promissory fraud claim against the TVA. (Doc. 17 at 18). Therefore, the Court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.