Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNIONS, UNION MEMBERS—C.D. Ill.: 64-year-old African-American laborer adequately alleged that union discriminated in job referrals, (Nov 14, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

Instead of referring him for a position he sought, Laborers Union Local 309 allegedly referred three Caucasian members who were under 60 and less qualified.

A 64-year-old African-American man who was not referred by his union for a position as a laborer in Muscatine, Iowa—for which the union instead referred three Caucasian members who were less qualified and under 60—stated claims of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and age discrimination under the ADEA, a federal district court found. Alleging that his unfavorable treatment was due to both his race and his age did not foreclose either claim under a but-for framework, and his minimal allegations were sufficient to state both discrimination claims (McCall v. Laborers Union Local 309, No. 4:25-cv-04045-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2025)).

Laborer. The plaintiff, according to the court, is a 64-year-old African-American man who was a member of Laborers Union Local 309.

Position in Muscatine. In February 2023, he alleged, Local 309 did not refer him to a laborer position in Muscatine, Iowa, for which he was qualified. Instead, the local referred three Caucasian members who were under 60 and less qualified than the plaintiff.

EEOC charge and lawsuit. On March 21, 2023, he filed a charge with the EEOC alleging that Local 309 discriminated against him. Then, on January 16, 2025, he sued Local 309, alleging race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and age discrimination in violation of the ADEA.

Local 309 removed the case from state court to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed an amended his complaint on February 27, 2025, and the union moved to dismiss both claims.

Section 1981 race discrimination. Turning first to the laborer’s Section 1981 claim, the court observed that “[S]ection 1981 prohibits race discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts,” and courts “assume[ ] that union membership, in which a member pays dues in exchange for certain benefits, is a contract under § 1981.” To survive a motion to dismiss, “[a] complaint alleging [race] discrimination need only aver that the employer instituted a (specified) adverse employment action against the plaintiff on the basis of [his race].”

Minimal but sufficient allegations. Applying these standards, the court found the union’s argument that the laborer failed to plead a Section 1981 violation a “nonstarter.” He alleged that he is African-American, that he was not placed in a laborer position, that Local 309 “[i]nstead... placed three Caucasian union members” who “had less seniority... and less qualifications” than he in the position, and that this constituted race discrimination. These allegations, said the court, “are minimal but sufficient to state a § 1981 claim and provide Local 309 with adequate notice of his claim and its factual basis.”

Causation. Section 1981 race discrimination claims, the court further observed, “are subject to a but-for causation requirement; in other words, the ‘plaintiff must initially plead and ultimately prove that, but for race, it would not have suffered the loss of a legally protected right.’” Here, the union argued that, because the laborer alleged that he was discriminated against because of both his race and his age, he could not succeed under the but-for test.

The court was unmoved. “A single event can have multiple but-for causes,” it observed, and “alleging that [the laborer’s] unfavorable treatment was due to both his race and his age does not foreclose [him] from succeeding on either claim under a but-for framework.” Even if his claims of race and age discrimination were inconsistent with one another, the court further noted, a plaintiff can plead inconsistent theories in a complaint.

The union’s motion to dismiss the Section 1981 race discrimination claim was accordingly denied.

Age discrimination. The laborer’s ADEA discrimination claim fared similarly. Again, the court rejected the union’s argument that his two theories of discrimination precluded a finding of but-for causation as to either. And again, he stated a claim. He alleged that he was 64 years old, qualified for the position and not referred, and that those the union referred were younger and less qualified.

His age discrimination claim thus survived the union’s motion to dismiss as well.

The case is No. 4:25-cv-04045-SLD-RLH.

Judge: Darrow, S.

Attorneys: Stephen T. Fieweger (Law Offices of Stephen T. Fieweger) for Dwight McCall. Brian C. Hlavin (Baum Sigman Auerbach & Neuman) for Laborers Union Local 309.

Companies: Laborers Union Local 309

Cases: UnionsMembers Labor Discrimination RaceDiscrimination AgeDiscrimination IllinoisNews