Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Suit Over SAG-AFTRA’s Vaccine Mandate Rightly Dismissed
Opinion Says Performers’ Claims for Breach of Fair Representation Based on Return-to-Work Contract Requiring COVID-19 Inoculation Are Time Barred, Other State Law Causes of Action Are Preempted
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
|
|
|
DORIAN KINGI stuntman |
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of a consolidated complaint asserted against the largest television, film, and radio performers’ union over the organization’s negotiation and execution of a return-to-work agreement with media studios in 2021, requiring members to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to secure industry jobs.
In Tuesday’s memorandum opinion, signed by Circuit Judges Eric D. Miller and Jennifer Sung as well as Senior Circuit Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz, the court said that the plaintiffs’ breach-of-fair-representation claims are time-barred, rejecting the contention that the limitations period should be equitably tolled due to a 2023 strike and the fact that some performers initiated grievance procedures over the policy.
As to asserted state law causes of action for breach of contract, violation of fiduciary duties, and negligence, among others, the court said these claims rely on the union’s representational duties and, as such, are pre-empted by §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), which provides:
“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce…may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.”
Multiple Lawsuits
Forty separate lawsuits were filed against the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artist (“SAG-AFTRA”) in Los Angeles Superior Court between December 2023 and February 2024 over the union’s negotiation and execution of a revised return-to-work agreement (“RTWA”), dated July 19, 2021. The contract, which expired in May 2023, specified:
“Where permitted by law, a Producer may implement a policy providing that [certain] individuals must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of employment and/or prior to entering the workplace.”
After SAG-AFTRA removed the actions to federal court, Hollywood stuntman Dorian Kingi—known for his work on the 2018 motion picture “Venom” and the Netflix hit series “Stranger Things”—and the 39 other plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. In the pleading, they assert:
“SAG-AFTRA’s support and defense of the Covid-19 Mandates advocated in the SAG-AFTRA Return to Work Agreement and the COVID-19 Safety Agreement were adverse to the rights and claims of the Union Members. Defendants, as Union officials, owe a duty of loyalty to the Union Members, not SAG-AFTRA National organization…nor specific to the interests of their signatories (production companies and studios). The Union Members had a material interest in knowing about the…protocols…and [should have been] provided with an opportunity to address…how the RTWA was negatively affecting the members and breaching both the SAG-AFTRA Collective Bargaining Agreement, the SAG-AFTRA Constitution and the SAG-AFTRA Membership Agreement.”
The plaintiffs allege that they are opposed to COVID-19 vaccination for personal, religious, or health reasons and contend that they were unable to find employment because of their unvaccinated status. Several of the performers filed internal complaints with the union.
Motion to Dismiss
After SAG-AFTRA filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, District Court Judge Josephine L. Staton of the Central District of California granted the request, without leave to amend. She noted that, as to §301 preemption, courts are to look to whether the asserted cause of action involves a right conferred on an employee by a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) or is substantially dependent on the contract.
Applying the framework, she declared that “it is evident from the face of the [operative complaint] that all of [the] state-law claims are substantially dependent on analysis of the CBA,” citing as examples that “[p]laintiffs’ claim for breach of contract alleges that SAG-AFTRA ‘failed to adequately represent each union member’ ” and the “claim for negligence alleges that [the union] breached its ‘duty to fairly…represent Plaintiff[s’] interests as a labor union.”
As to other causes of action, such as the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as well as the assertion of tortious interference with a business advantage, Staton said “these claims do not explicitly invoke SAG-AFTRA’s duty of fair representation” but they are “also inextricably linked with” the obligation.
As to timeliness, she said the only viable cause of action is the plaintiffs’ federal breach of the duty of fair representation cause of action. She wrote:
“[A]ssuming without deciding that the duty of fair representation claims did not accrue until May 2023 when the Return-to-Work Agreement expired, Plaintiffs claims are nonetheless untimely. The six-month statute of limitations would have expired in November 2023, and Plaintiffs’ claims were not filed until between December 2023 and February 2024.”
Ninth Circuit’s View
Miller, Sung and Hurwitz said that “[p]laintiffs have standing to pursue their claims” as they “allege that producers enforced mandatory vaccination policies after adoption of SAG-AFTRA’s amended return-to-work agreement, and that SAG-AFTRA failed to intervene on Plaintiffs’ behalf during the wrongful implementation of these policies.” However, they concluded:
“Plaintiffs’ federal duty of fair representation claims…are barred by the six-month statute of limitations.”
They opined:
“Plaintiffs’ claims that SAG-AFTRA breached its duty of fair representation by negotiating the amended return-to-work agreement accrued when SAG-AFTRA executed the amended agreement on July 19, 2021….The statute of limitations expired six months later, on January 19, 2022, before Plaintiffs filed these actions.”
The judges rejected the performers’ contention that the limitations period should be tolled under the 1986 Ninth Circuit decision in Galindo v. Stoody, which held that a pause in the timeliness clock may be appropriate while an employee pursues internal union grievance procedures, opining:
“The tolling rule in Galindo…does not apply to these claims because grievance procedures could not have resulted in modification of the agreement.”
Continuing, they remarked:
“Plaintiffs’ claims that SAG-AFTRA breached its duty of fair representation by failing to represent Plaintiffs’ interests during the implementation of the return to-work agreement are similarly time-barred. These claims accrued, at the latest, when the return-to-work agreement expired on May 11, 2023. The statute of limitations expired six months later, on or before November 12, 2023, before Plaintiffs filed suit. Plaintiffs are not entitled to tolling during the SAG-AFTRA strike because, even assuming the strike created uncertainty as to the full extent of the damages resulting from SAG-AFTRA’s purported misconduct, the ‘possibility that subsequent events might influence the plaintiffs’ ultimate recovery does not necessitate a rule postponing the accrual of duty of fair representation claims.’ ”
Other Claims Preempted
Agreeing with Staton that the state law claims are preempted by §301, they commented:
“Although the membership agreement is not a labor contract for the purposes of the LMRA, Plaintiffs’ complaint makes ‘no showing of [SAG-AFTRA’s] additional duties’ under the membership agreement ‘beyond the normal incidents of the union-employee relationship.’…Consequently, Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the membership agreement are preempted by the federal duty of fair representation…Their corresponding claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing are likewise preempted.”
As to the other causes of action, the jurists agreed that the claims were inextricably tied to the union’s performance of its representative duties. They added:
“The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because Plaintiffs have not explained how amendment could remedy the defects….”
The case is Kingi v. Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, 24-5306.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company