# Petition — Draper v. United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers, Local 387 > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_1517%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1984 - **Citation:** 467 U.S. 1215 ## Text [ore “supreme Oe FILED APR 5 1984 R L. STEVAS, CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1983 WILLIE L. DRAPER, Petitioner, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 387, JESSE GREGORY; FORD MOTOR CO., WOODHAVEN STAMPING PLANT; AND FRANK DOYLE Respondent. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT | WILLIE L. DRAPER P.O. BOX 15540 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48215 TELEPHONE: (313) 933-6953 co-_- ~ QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Was the granting of summary judgment based on laches, statute of limitations, lawful, where, time a material issue of fact, disputed less than three in issue Appendixes A and B. Further, was it “constructive contempt* by non-compliance with court‘s subpeona, what is fair procedure? Is it “denial of a meaningful opportu- nity to be heard to grant motion not in procedural compliance with rules and thereby effecting a substantial right VII Amendment to the United States Constitution? Was substantial justice rendered where affidavits were made in bad faith, no discovery or cross examination of parties making affidavits and Court asserting good faith of union? Was the acts of the Respondent union (conspiracy) a breach of duty of fair representation? ity Pe 4 Is continuing racial discrimination against minorities (blacks) a breach of contract by Respondents and is there remedy under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? What is the requirements of the settled principle of "due process"? Note United States Court of Appeal Opinion (1978); and Appendixes E and B. ws b; 2 E : a TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....... PETITION POR WRIT OF CERTIORARI. . QUESTIONS PRESENTED. ....... CURR ks as oe ce ce cw GROUNDS FOR JURISDICTION. .... CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED STATEMENT OF THE CASE. ...... REASONS POR GRANTING a Sn > 6 skh iene es oes APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX E ou > Fe WY WY KN FE TABLE OF AUTHORITIES VII, XIII, XIV Amendment Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title XXVIII. United States Code, Section 1254(1}) .....+«-+-e«-+« -4 Statutes Equal Employment Opportunity Act CF1972 212 USC2QQ0E-2(A)(1)(2) ... .- 42 USC 2Q0Q00E-2(C) (1) (2) (3). . . 29 USC Sec. 401, 610, 2, 530. . 29 USCA 411, 412, 185 Se ae ° 42 USC Sec. 1985, 1983, 1981. . “kK = “te, wh oe ae 6) we we a hi & b> & Cases Zamora vs. Massey-Ferguson 336 F.Supp. sat Toyz) - ee. . . >. > 7 > ° 5 Hickman vs. Taylor 329 Us 495. * a . ¥ 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1983 No. WILLIE L. DRAPER, Petitioner, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 387, JESSE GREGORY; FORD MOTOR COMPANY, WOODHAVEN STAMPING PLANT AND FRANK DOYLE Respondents. a PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT The Petitioner, WILLIE L. DRAPER, respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit entered on 12 December 1983. . Rar QUESTIONS PRESENTED Was the granting of summary judgment based on laches, statute of limitations, lawful, where, time a material issue of fact, disputed less than three in issue Appendixes A and B. Further, was it "constructive contempt" by non-compliance with court's subpeona, what is fair procedure? Is it “denial™ of a meaningful opportu- nity to be heard to grant motion not in procedural compliance with rules and thereby effecting a substantial right VII Amendment to the United States Constitution? Was substantial justice rendered where affidavits were made in bad faith, no discovery or cross examination of parties making affidavits and Court asserting good faith of union? Was the acts of the Respondent union (conspiracy) a breach of duty of fair representation? Bis, fern, AS Brg : A> 4 : vx ; Net. ‘on ay aS ape ey Roth aoe = ase)” he ttyl ees «9 Hg a Me LE Te UR et Rm Bn age Cee to.” RRRMR ee On Is continuing racial discrimination against minorities (blacks) a breach of contract by Respondents and is there remedy under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? What is the requirements of the settled principle of “due process"? Note U..ited States Court of Appeal Opinion (1978); and Appendixes E and B. OPINION BELOW The Court of Appeals entered its Memorandum decision affirming the Summary Judgment granted the respondent by the Honorable Judge Ralph B. Guy in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division; and denying petitioner motion for Injunctive Relief copies herewith attached. JURISDICTION On 12 December 1983, the Court of Appeals entered judgment affirming the Summary Judgment on behalf of the respondents granted in the District Court. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1254(1). CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED United States Constitutional Amendments VII, XIII, XIV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE An appeal of the Summary Judgment based on the doctrine of laches. Plaintiff-Appellant alleges racial discrimination by the Defendents- Appellees his Union (UAW) and Employer, Pord Motor Company in violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Acts of 1964 as _ amended by the Equal Enployment Opportunity Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. 20003, 29 U.S.C. 401 Section 610, 29 U.S.C. 401 Section 2, 29 U.S.C.A. 411, 29 U.S.C.A. 412, 29 U.S.C.A. 185, 42 U.S.C. Section 1985, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, Zamora y. Massey-Perguson, 336 F.Supp. 588 (1972), Patrick v. I.D. Packing Company, Inc., 308 F.Supp. 821 (1969), Lumous v. N.L.R.B., 339 F.2d 728 (1964) and Vica v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 172 (1964). REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT Petitioner filed the timely complaint on 4/12/74. The complaint was within the filing dates required by the statute. | The E.E.0.C. failed to mail the Right To Sue letter until requested by the Appellant-Petitioner in 1982. This case has been in the Federal Court and State Courts until 8/31/79. Dismissed 8/31/79 and refiled under Title VII 4/19/82. Petitioner served the Respondents with Subpeonas to appear on December 2, 1982. Respondents failed to appear as ordered by subpoena. For oral deposition petitioner relies on Equal Baployment ag ll mu > _ Al S J ¢ oo CAE. 3) LET Ne *\ ae a Opportunity Commission v. Mississippi a. “oes 5 ee — — Pp. : is 8 sation Lie Sane” ome 2 A Tag Shy ANS nt tbatl ss nated 3 aes hearing was conducted before Judge Guy on plaintiff‘*s amended complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1983 and 1985(3); 29 U.S.C. §185; 29 U.S.C. §§ 401, 411, 412 and 530, and Title VII. The plaintiff raised many allegations in his amended complaint which was in excess of one hundred paragraphs relating to his employment with Ford and his relationship with the union between the ; years 1974 and 1978. He primarily complained | that he was not given a fair amount of over- time work which he was entitled to while he was an elected committeeman in 1974. Plaintiff also claimed that a union committee- man assaulted him in March of 1974 when he complained about the lack of overtime work. Plaintiff raised many other charges relating to wrongful disciplinary measures, denial of promotions, the theft of his car, denial of free speech at union meetings, distri- bution of defamatory literature, improper assignments of work, improperly held elections and denial of counsel at grievance hearings. Upon a careful review of the district court record, especially of the transcript of the hearing conducted on the defendants‘ motions for summary judgment, this Court concludes that the district court properly entered summary judgment for the defendants as there is ample support for the entry of the judgment in their favar even while the Court construes the evidence in a light favorable to this pro se plain- tiff. Bouldis v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp., 711 F.2d 1319, 1324 (6th Cir. 1983); Smith v. Pan Am World Airways, 706 F.2d 771, 773 (@th Cir. 1983) (Per Curian). The Plaintiff‘*s §1983 claim was properly denied because he utterly failed to show that the defendants acted under color of state law. Coffy v. Multi-County Narcotics Bureau, 600 P.2d 570, 579 (6th Cir. 1979). His §1985(3) claim was also properly dismissed as allegations Ba es a “Aik et tik ;> a A re in Y rare _- * het ® os «' pat "a s. - ¥ Supporting a §1985(3) claim of employment discrimination may only be considered under Title VII. Great American Ped. S. & L. Asan. v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366 (1979). Plaintiff's Claims as brought under 29 U.S.C. §185 and 42 U.S.C. §1981 were also dismissed for being time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. Regardless of whether the six month time limitation contained in the NLRA or the three year time limitations applicable under Michigan state law is applied in this case, the plaintiff's §185 Claim is time-barred; and his §1981 claim is absolutely time-barred under the three year statute of limitations which has been held to govern the timeliness of civil rights complaints. Geromette v. General Motors Corp., 609 F.2d 1200, 1201 (6th Cir. 1979). The plaintiff was also required to exhaust his internal union remedies before agserting his claims under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Procedure Act, 29 U.S.C. §4Q1l. See 29 U.S.C. §41ll(a) (4); Stelling v. IBEW, Local 1547, 587 F.2d 1379, 1339- 1390 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 944 (1979). Finally, the district court also reasonably and cautiously applied the doctrine of laches to bar plaintiff's Title VII claims in this case. The court properly considered unavailability of witnesses, changed personnel, and loss of pertinent records in its determination that the defendants would suffer undue prejudice if plaintiff were allowed to pursue his Title VII claims. Abermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975); EEOC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 668 F.2d 1199 (llth Cir. 1982). The court also did not abuse its discretion in restricting plaintiff‘s discovery until after it could rule on the defendants‘ summary judgment motions. For these reasons, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not necessary P in this appeal. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The plaintiff's motion is, accordingly, denied and the district court's judgment is hereby affirmed pursuant to Rule9(d)3, Rules of the Sixth Circuit. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT Clerk --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_1517%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.