No Affirmative Union Duty to Initiate Discrimination Grievance Absent Member Request:
A Detailed Commentary on Anthony B. Sullers, Sr. v. International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 2, 7th Cir. June 27 2025

1. Introduction

This Seventh Circuit decision addresses two distinct but intertwined themes:

• Procedural Rigor on Appeal: The extent to which a thin, borderline–compliant appellate brief (Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28) risks dismissal, yet may still receive merits review when the record is clear.
• Substantive Labor-Law Question: Whether a union breaches its federal duty of fair representation when it does not add a race-discrimination theory to a grievance where (i) the employee never expressly requested such a grievance and (ii) the union ultimately obtained complete make-whole relief for the employee.

Plaintiff–appellant Anthony B. Sullers, Sr., an African-American elevator mechanic, alleged that his union—International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 2 (IUEC)—handled his employment dispute with discriminatory indifference and bad faith. The district court granted summary judgment to the Union; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court, per Judge Ripple, held:

1. The plaintiff’s appellate brief narrowly complied with Rule 28; although sparse, it allowed the panel to discern his contentions. Hence, the appeal was not dismissed for briefing defects.
2. On the merits, the Union’s conduct was not arbitrary, discriminatory, nor undertaken in bad faith. Obtaining reinstatement and full back-pay—the maximum contractual remedy—fulfilled the Union’s duty of fair representation.
3. Because the plaintiff never asked the Union to pursue a race-based grievance and suffered no cognizable harm after full relief was secured, no triable issue existed.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) – Classical articulation of a union’s duty to avoid arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad-faith conduct; the Court relied on Vaca as the doctrinal backbone.
• Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (1991) – Provided the “wide range of reasonableness” standard; used to evaluate arbitrariness.
• Bishop v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n (Bishop I 2018; Bishop II 2021) – Seventh Circuit’s modern roadmap for duty-of-fair-representation claims; quoted extensively for objective/subjective bifurcation (arbitrary vs. discriminatory/bad-faith) and evidentiary burdens.
• Garcia v. Zenith, 58 F.3d 1171 (7th Cir. 1995) – Emphasized a union’s discretion in tactical grievance handling and employee’s burden to show outcome-determinative harm.
• Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2001) and progeny – Reinforced Rule 28 compliance as a gatekeeping function; the panel assembled these authorities to admonish counsel yet opt for a merits disposition.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Rule 28 Discussion

Although dicta to the ultimate labor-law holding, the opinion devotes considerable space to appellate-brief sufficiency. The Court:

• Reconfirmed dismissal as a possible sanction for “complete failure” to meet Rule 28.
• Explained that judicial economy and adversarial fairness justify strict enforcement, but an institutional preference for merits dispositions may temper dismissal when the record is concise and the issues straightforward.

This hybrid stance—stern warning yet pragmatic forbearance—will guide future litigants who attempt minimalist briefing in the Seventh Circuit.

3.2.2 Duty of Fair Representation

1. No Arbitariness: The Union investigated, filed a grievance, negotiated three settlement offers, escalated to arbitration, and accepted an offer once the employer withdrew the “drop your IDHR charge” condition—textbook reasonableness.
2. No Discrimination: The only evidence of purported animus was (a) an isolated “screaming rant” by the local president when plaintiff rejected a settlement and (b) a speculative deposition hypothetical. The Court held individual hostility—even if assumed—cannot automatically be imputed to the union entity absent proof it drove the union’s collective decision.
3. No Bad Faith: The union’s strategy sought maximum relief (back-pay plus reinstatement) and succeeded. A union’s disagreement with a member’s litigation preference is not dishonesty, fraud, or personal animus.
4. No Causation/Harm: Because plaintiff ultimately received the full remedy available under the CBA, he could not establish that any allegedly deficient union conduct caused him loss.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Clarifies Union Obligations: The Seventh Circuit expressly states that absent a member’s specific request, a union does not breach its duty simply by choosing a non-discrimination theory or a different forum (e.g., allowing the member to pursue an IDHR/EEOC charge separately) so long as the union’s approach is rational and non-invidious.
• Strategic Flexibility Preserved: Labor organizations may continue to weigh costs, evidence strength, and collective interests when deciding grievance theories without fear of liability—provided they reach, or rationally aim for, an objectively reasonable result.
• Appellate Practice Signal: The Court’s extensive Rule 28 discussion sends a cautionary but nuanced message: minimalist briefs endanger appeals but may survive where facts are simple; however, counsel should not count on such leniency in more complex or novel matters.
• Intersection with Anti-Discrimination Law: The decision implicitly delineates the boundary between a union’s NLRA duty and Title VII liability: a union assisting an employee in filing an external administrative charge, rather than converting the workplace grievance into a discrimination grievance, is permissible.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Duty of Fair Representation: A legal obligation arising because the union exclusively speaks for all workers in a bargaining unit. The union must avoid (a) irrational/arbitrary acts, (b) intentional discrimination, and (c) bad-faith conduct.
• Arbitrary vs. Bad-Faith Conduct: Arbitrary = objectively irrational decisions; Bad faith = subjectively dishonest or malicious motives.
• Summary Judgment: A procedural device allowing courts to decide cases without trial when no genuine dispute of material fact exists.
• FRAP 28: Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 sets out mandatory briefing requirements; failure may lead to waiver or dismissal.
• Back-Pay / Reinstatement: Monetary compensation for wages lost during wrongful lay-off and return to previous job position—often the maximum remedy under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

5. Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Sullers v. IUEC Local 2 carves out an important confirmation: a union does not have an affirmative duty to inject discrimination allegations into a grievance or press them in arbitration if the member never asks for such relief and the union secures full contractual remedies through other means. Equally notable is Judge Ripple’s detailed recitation of Rule 28’s briefing standards—a roadmap (and warning) for appellate litigators.

In short, the case reinforces union autonomy in grievance strategy, underscores the employee’s role in requesting specific discrimination relief, and reminds counsel that skeletal appellate briefs tread on perilous ground—even if, as here, the court ultimately proceeds to decide the merits.