Escamilla v. United Food Cmercl, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10522
Summary Calendar
ORALIA ESCAMILLA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
AFL-CIO CLC LOCAL # 514T; ETHICON INC,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:01-CV-11-C
--------------------
November 22, 2002
Before DAVIS, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Oralia Escamilla appeals from the granting of summary
judgment denying her claims against her union and her employer.
When contesting summary judgment, the non-movant must offer
specific facts showing a genuine contest more than conclusional
allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla of
evidence. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th
Cir. 1994) (en banc). The nature of plaintiff’s case makes the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-10522
-2-
showing of a union breach a prerequisite for recovery against
both the union and the employer. DelCostello v. International
Bhd. Of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 165 (1983). A union breach of
fair representation must be shown by “substantial evidence”.
Amalgamated Ass’n of Street, Elec. Ry. and Motor Coach Employees
v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 299 (1971) (internal citation and
quotation omitted). Because Escamilla fails to offer substantial
evidence of the union breach, both of her claims must fail.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's decision.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --