Glover et al. v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. et al.

Supreme Court of United States
393 U.S. 324 (1969)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employee is not required to exhaust contractual or administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court when the employee alleges that the union and employer are colluding to discriminate, making any attempt to use those remedies wholly futile.

Facts:

Eight Black and five white employees of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. (Frisco) worked as carmen helpers.
All thirteen employees were qualified by experience to be promoted to the higher-paying position of carmen, but were repeatedly denied promotion.
The railroad and the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America (the union) had a 'tacit understanding' and 'subrosa agreement' to prevent Black employees from being promoted to carmen.
Instead of promoting the qualified helpers, the railroad hired and used less-experienced 'apprentices' to perform carmen's work to avoid promoting the Black employees.
The employees repeatedly complained to both union and company officials about the discrimination.
Union representatives told the Black employees they were 'kidding themselves if they thought they could ever get white men's jobs' and that filing a complaint would be a 'waste of their time.'
When the white employees complained, union officials called them 'nigger lovers' and warned them they were inviting trouble.
Representatives from both the union and the company treated the employees' complaints with condescension, sometimes laughing at or cursing them, but never took them seriously.

Procedural Posture:

Thirteen employees (petitioners) sued the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. and the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America (respondents) in United States District Court.
The respondents filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the employees had not exhausted their administrative remedies.
The District Court granted the motion to dismiss.
The employees filed an amended complaint detailing why pursuing administrative remedies would be futile.
The District Court again sustained the motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The employees (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal.
The employees (petitioners) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the requirement that employees exhaust administrative remedies under the Railway Labor Act and a collective bargaining agreement bar a lawsuit in federal court when the employees allege that pursuing such remedies would be wholly futile due to collusion between their union and employer to engage in racial discrimination?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Black

No. The exhaustion requirement does not apply when pursuing administrative remedies would be wholly futile. The Court has recognized exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine, particularly where the administrative body is comprised of the very parties against whom the complaint is made. Here, the employees alleged in the clearest possible terms that the union and the railroad were acting in concert to discriminate against them, rendering any appeal through channels controlled by those parties futile. To insist that the employees exhaust these remedies would only serve to prolong the deprivation of their rights. Therefore, their repeated informal complaints to company and union officials were sufficient, and they can proceed with their lawsuit in federal court against both the union and the railroad.

Concurring - Mr. Justice Harlan

No. Justice Harlan joined the majority opinion but wrote separately to add two points. First, he noted that a prior Fifth Circuit case also supported the holding that federal courts can grant relief against an employer who aids a union in breaching its duty of fair representation, as a contrary result would needlessly bifurcate litigation. Second, he clarified that a footnote in Conley v. Gibson did not actually decide the question of jurisdiction over an employer in a fair representation suit, making the present case one of first impression for the Court on that specific issue.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the 'futility exception' to the doctrine requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies in labor law. It empowers employees to seek immediate judicial relief when facing a conspiracy between their union and employer, preventing those parties from using internal grievance procedures as a shield to perpetuate discrimination. The case clarifies that federal courts have jurisdiction over both the union for its breach of the duty of fair representation and the employer for its complicity, ensuring that victims can obtain complete relief in a single forum. This precedent is crucial for civil rights and labor cases where the integrity of the grievance process itself is compromised.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Glover et al. v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. et al. (1969)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"