1199seiu United Healthcare Workers E. v. PSC Cmty. Servs.
| Decision Date | 24 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-cv-3611 (JGK) |
| Citation | 608 F.Supp.3d 50 |
| Parties | 1199SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST, Petitioner, v. PSC COMMUNITY SERVICES, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
James Michael Reif, Gladstein, Reif, Meginniss, New York, NY, Kimberly Lehmann, Laureve Daniele Blackstone, Levy Ratner, P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Michael Patrick Collins, Mallory Campbell, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, New York, NY, for Respondent PSC Community Services.
James Joseph Sawczyn, Patrick G. Brady, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Newark, NJ, Michael D. Thompson, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Newark, NJ, for Respondent New Partners, Inc.
Philip K. Davidoff, FordHarrison LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents Stella Orton Home Care Agency, Richmond Home Needs, Sunnyside Home Care Project, Sunnyside Citywide Home Care.
Philip K. Davidoff, Andrew Williamson, Jeffrey Alan Shooman, FordHarrison LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents Family Home Care of Brooklyn and Queens, Care at Home.
Kenneth Harold Kirschner, David Justin Baron, Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, United Jewish Council of the East Side Home Attendant Service Corp.
Douglas Joseph Klein, Felice B. Ekelman, Ryan Christopher Chapoteau, Christopher Michael Repole, Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, NY, for Respondent The First Chinese Presbyterian Community Affairs Home Attendant Corp.
Christopher Michael Repole, Douglas Joseph Klein, Ryan Christopher Chapoteau, Eric Philip Simon, Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, NY, for Respondents Azor Home Care, Bushwick Stuyvesant Heights Home Attendant, Inc., CABS Homecare, Riverspring Licensed Homecare Services Agency, Inc., St. Nicholas Human Supports Corp., Wartburg.
Christopher Michael Repole, Felice B. Ekelman, Ryan Christopher Chapoteau, Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, NY, for Respondents Alliance for Health, Inc., AccentCare of NY, Inc.
Ira David Wincott, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC, New Hyde Park, NY, Lisa Marie Griffith, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Melville, NY, for Respondents Region Care, Inc.
Richard Jay Reibstein, Locke Lord LLP, New York, NY, for Respondent Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc.
Robert F. Milman, Milman Labuda Law Roup PLLC, New York, NY, for Respondent RAIN, Inc.
Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., River Edge, NJ, Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., New York, NY, Shannon Danielle Azzaro, Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, NY, for Respondents Prestige Home Care, Inc., Prestige Home Attendant, Inc., Personal Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc.
James E. McGrath, III, Rebecca Kim Kimura, Putney Twombly Hall & Hirson LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents Priority Home Services, Premier Home Health Care, Inc.
Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., River Edge, NJ, Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., New York, NY, for Respondents ABC Health Services Registry, Personal Touch LI, Personal Touch WC.
The present motions concern an award rendered in an arbitration pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (the "LMRA") involving the petitioner, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East (the "Union") and the respondents, a group of home care agencies (the "Award," ECF No. 183-1). In the Award, the arbitrator determined that the respondents had committed various wage and hour laws violations with respect to over 100,000 of the respondents’ current and former Union member-employees. Among other things, the arbitrator ordered the respondents to create and contribute to a compensation fund of approximately $30 million (the "Fund") and to disburse the funds to eligible claimants. The Union petitioned this Court to confirm the Award on March 1, 2022. See ECF No. 183 (the "Amended Petition").
On March 11, 2022, twelve former employees of certain respondents moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining the parties from creating the Fund and otherwise implementing the Award. These movants also moved to dismiss the Amended Petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court denied these motions in an Opinion and Order dated April 7, 2022. See 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers E. v. PSC Cmty. Servs., No. 20-cv-3611, 597 F.Supp.3d 557 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2022) (the " Preliminary Injunction Order").
On April 26, 2022, thirteen former employees of three respondents, Employers Alliance for Health ("Alliance"), the First Chinese Presbyterian Community Affairs Home Attendant Corporation, Inc. ("FCP"), and the Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program ("CPC") (the "Movants") moved to intervene in this action for the purpose of seeking partial vacatur of the Award. The Movants also moved to vacate the aspects of the Award that pertain to themselves and certain former employees of those respondents.
For the following reasons, the Movant's motion to intervene for the purpose of seeking partial vacatur of the Award is denied. The Movant's motion to vacate the Award in part is denied . The Union's Amended Petition to confirm the Award is granted.
The Court assumes familiarity with the Preliminary Injunction Order and its Opinion and Order dated February 19, 2021, in which the Court confirmed an earlier jurisdictional award of the arbitrator and denied motions of former employees of certain respondents to intervene and to dismiss the Union's petition to confirm that award or to stay confirmation of that award. See 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers E. v. PSC Cmty. Servs., 520 F. Supp. 3d 588 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (the " First Confirmation Order"). The facts relevant to resolving the current motions are set forth below.
By way of brief background, in the jurisdictional award issued on April 17, 2020, the arbitrator determined that pursuant to the collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") between the Union and the respondents, the arbitrator had arbitral jurisdiction to adjudicate the wage and hours claims of former and current Union members irrespective of whether their employment terminated prior to the effective date of a 2015 memorandum of agreement between the Union and the respondents (the "Pre-2015 MOA Employees"). First Confirmation Order, 520 F. Supp. 3d at 597. The Union petitioned this Court to confirm that award, which the Court granted in the First Confirmation Order.
Several former employees of certain respondents had moved to intervene in this action and moved to dismiss that petition. The Court found these former employees’ arguments against confirmation of the first jurisdictional award to be without merit and denied their motion to intervene, finding that they lacked standing to challenge the award and that any purported interest that they had in opposing confirmation of the award was "too contingent or remote to be cognizable under Rule 24."1 First Confirmation Order, 520 F. Supp. 3d at 600. These former employees filed a non-expedited appeal of the First Confirmation Order with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which is currently pending. Following the First Confirmation Order, the Union and the respondents proceeded to litigate the merits of the Union's grievance before the arbitrator.
The arbitrator then issued the Award on February 25, 2022.2 The Award is discussed in the Preliminary Injunction Order in detail and that discussion is incorporated here by reference. See Preliminary Injunction Order, 597 F.Supp.3d at 564–66. In sum, the arbitrator determined that the respondents violated wage and hour laws during the relevant time period and ordered the respondents to contribute to the Fund on a per capita basis. The arbitrator arrived at the per capita contribution remedy after weighing several competing considerations, including the financial stability of the home care industry. The arbitrator ultimately concluded that a "per capita contribution greater than two hundred fifty ($250) dollars is not sustainable and will, inevitably, lead to deserving employees failing to recover upon their meritorious claims," and ordered the creation and financing of the Fund accordingly. Amended Petition ¶ 31. Once fully financed, the Fund will exceed $30 million.
In the Preliminary Injunction Order, the Court denied the motion by twelve non-party movants for a preliminary injunction enjoining the parties’ compliance with the Award. In that Order, the Court also denied these movants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Eight of the twelve movants who filed those motions are now in the group of Movants presently before the Court.3
In the Preliminary Injunction Order, the Court found that the movants lacked standing to seek the requested preliminary injunction and dismissal of the Amended Petition. See Preliminary Injunction Order, 597 F.Supp.3d at 565–70. The Court also found the movants’ argument that the pending appeal of the First Confirmation Order stripped this Court of subject matter jurisdiction over the Amended Petition to be without merit. Id. at 571–73. In so holding, the Court reasoned that questions relating to the confirmation of the Award are not "involved in" the pending appeal of the First Confirmation Order. Id.
Finally, in the Preliminary Injunction Order, the Court afforded the movants an opportunity to file a motion to vacate the Award in part and directed the movants to explain in that motion why they have standing to challenge the Award notwithstanding the Preliminary Injunction Order and the First Confirmation Order. Id. at 574. The Court also directed the movants to "either file a motion to intervene for the purposes of challenging the [Amended] Petition or explain why they should be permitted to seek partial vacatur of the [Award] as non-parties and non-intervenors." Id.
On April 26, 2022, the thirteen Movants filed a motion to vacate the Award in part and a motion to intervene for the purpose of seeking partial vacatur of the Award. The Union opposed both motions and...
To continue reading
Request your trial