United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Elizabeth A. Stafford Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING UAW-GM CENTER FOR HUMAN
RESOURCES' MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
J. MICHELSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
beginning their General Motors' careers working in
automotive plants, Plaintiffs were “Special
Assigned” to more desirable positions at the UAW-GM
Center for Human Resources (“CHR”). Over ten
years later, Plaintiffs were reassigned back to their home
plants or new ones. They say that this decision was made due
to their age. Therefore, they filed this lawsuit pursuant to
federal and state age discrimination law.
surviving a motion to dismiss by Defendant UAW, Plaintiffs
were permitted to file a second amended complaint. (R. 44.)
Now Defendant CHR has filed a motion to dismiss. (R. 48.)
reasons set forth below, the Court will DENY the motion.
Court recites as fact the non-conclusory allegations of
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. See Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009).
UAW created CHR as a joint program through their collective
bargaining agreement. (R. 44, PID 627.) CHR is a nonprofit
corporation jointly funded by GM and UAW that provides for
the development, coordination, and administration of programs
designed to provide education and training to GM employees.
(R. 44, PID 625, 627, 629-30.)
John Bolin, Gary Domke, and Michael Procaskey began working
for GM in the 1970s. (R. 44, PID 626.) In the 1990s, they
were all assigned to the CHR by the UAW Vice President. (R.
44, PID 626, 633.)
CHR, and GM jointly controlled the work and working
conditions of Plaintiffs after they were assigned to CHR. (R.
44, PID 632.) UAW or CHR provided the assigned employees
instruction, supervision, evaluation, and assignments. (R.
44, PID 633-34.)
September 2014, Cindy Estrada, the UAW Vice President, became
a member of CHR's Executive Committee. (R. 44, PID 630.)
This role entitled her to exercise the power and authority of
the CHR Board of Trustees between Board meetings.
(Id.) Estrada in her role as UAW VP or Executive
Committee Member of the CHR (or both) was able to make
personnel decisions regarding assignments to CHR. (R. 44, PID
February 2015, Estrada made the decision to end
Plaintiffs' assignments to CHR. (R. 44, PID 636.) She did
so “in her role as the [UAW VP] alone.”
(Id.) It was her administrative assistants, however,
who actually broke the news to Plaintiffs. (R. 44, PID 635.)
Plaintiffs were informed that their special assignments to
CHR were ending on March 1, 2015, after which they were to
return to their home plant or retire. (Id.) When
Plaintiffs returned to their home plants, their pay decreased
as much as 50% and their hours and working conditions were
negatively affected. (Id.)
April 1, 2015, at least five of the vacated positions at CHR
were filled with younger, and less-experienced, individuals.
(R. 44, PID 638.)
December 2015, each of the Plaintiffs prepared and submitted
an Equal Employment Commission Intake Questionnaire with
their complaint. (R. 44, PID 638-39.) They allege that their
special assignments to CHR were terminated because of their
age, in violation of the Age Discrimination and Employment