Clemmons v. Hodes
| Decision Date | 26 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | 15 Civ. 8975 (KPF) |
| Parties | ANTHONY LEON CLEMMONS, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW HODES, DAVID PLUMB, GERALD LORRAINE, FREDERICK N. CHIDESTER, NANCY F. EISCHEN, JAMES WALKER, METRO-NORTH RAILROAD, and TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
1
For nearly three years, Plaintiff Anthony Leon Clemmons was a member of the Transport Workers Union of America ("TWUA"), who worked as a train car cleaner for Metro-North Railroad ("Metro-North"). Though the cause of his injury is disputed, Plaintiff was injured, somehow, in December 2010. Initially, Plaintiff told Metro-North that he was injured while cleaning a train car; he later recanted that story and, following a disciplinary hearing in 2012, was terminated for falsifying an injury report. Plaintiff's administrative appeal of that termination was denied in 2014, prompting Plaintiff to file this suit against Metro-North, the TWUA, and several railroad and union employees. Among a multitude of claims, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; cruel and unusual punishment in violation ofthe Eighth Amendment; violations of his procedural due process rights; civil and criminal conspiracy; and breach of the duty of fair representation.
Before the Court are two motions to dismiss — one filed by Metro-North, Andrew Hodes, James Walker, and David Plumb (collectively, the "Metro-North Defendants"), and a second filed by the TWUA and Gerald Lorraine (collectively, the "Union Defendants"). For the reasons stated below, both motions to dismiss are granted.2
The following factual recitation draws principally from the SAC, and as such reflects Plaintiff's view of the events. Plaintiff began working as a coach cleaner for Metro-North in March 2007. (SAC ¶ 11). On December 23, 2010, at 11:00 a.m., Plaintiff injured his hand while cleaning the sink in a train car. (Id. at ¶ 13). Because he was "bleeding very badly," Plaintiff looked for a supervisor at the train yard (id. at ¶¶ 14-15); when he could not find one, he told a co-worker that he was injured and was taking a lunch break to seek medical attention (id. at ¶ 16). Plaintiff asked this co-worker to tell the Yard Foreman why he left work. (Id. at ¶ 17). Plaintiff visited a doctor, who sent him to a hospital to receive stitches, and then returned to the train yard around 2:00 p.m. to continue his shift. (Id. at ¶¶ 18-21). Around 4:00 p.m., Plaintiff informed the General Foreman that he had been injured at work and had left to seek treatment. (Id. at ¶ 23). Based on Plaintiff's statements, the General Foreman issued an accident report. (Id.).
A few days later, on the morning of December 28, 2010, Plaintiff spoke to Defendant David Plumb, Superintendent of Car Appearance, about his injury. (SAC ¶ 28). By Plaintiff's telling, he informed Plumb that he was injured while working, and Plumb, contrary to Metro-North policy, sent him back to work without being cleared by the Occupational Health Services Department. (Id.). Later that day, Plaintiff was called back into Plumb's office. (Id. at ¶ 30). Whenhe arrived, he met his union representative, Defendant Gerald Lorraine, in the hallway; Lorraine told Plaintiff not to tell Plumb that he had been injured at work "because they are finding ways to terminate people with less time on the job," and instead advised Plaintiff that he should "make up anything, say a dog bite" to "keep [his] job." (Id. at ¶¶ 30-32). Plaintiff then "did as he was instructed" and Plumb told him he was "forgiven." (Id. at ¶ 32).
Plumb's absolution proved fleeting. The Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between Metro-North and the TWUA provides that a union employee "shall not be suspended nor dismissed from service without a fair and impartial trial[.]" (SAC, Ex. 28). Under the CBA, an employee is entitled to "prompt advance notice"; he or she "may be accompanied by a union representative" at the trial; and he or she is "permitted to question witnesses." (Id.). A union employee is also entitled to appeal the decision within Metro-North and, thereafter, to an Impartial Arbitrator. (Id. at Ex. 29). The employee may "submit proof" to the Impartial Arbitrator, whose decision is "final and binding." (Id.).
On January 4, 2011, Metro-North mailed Plaintiff a Notice of Action stating that a hearing would be held on January 12, 2011, on charges that Plaintiff had been absent from his assigned work location, falsified an injury report, and committed conduct unbecoming of a Metro-North employee. (SAC ¶ 39). On January 10, 2011, however, Plaintiff injured his back in a car accident, and his hearing was adjourned a dozen times throughout 2011 and2012 due to Plaintiff's ongoing medical treatment. (Id. at ¶¶ 40-46). On November 29, 2012, Defendant Lorraine informed Plaintiff that Metro-North would hold "the trial tomorrow[] whether Plaintiff was present or not." (Id. at ¶ 49). And, indeed, on November 30, 2012, Metro-North held a disciplinary hearing presided over by a Hearing Officer, Defendant James Walker. (Id. at ¶¶ 52-53). Plaintiff was then "under strong medication constantly," and felt he could not participate, but he appeared for the trial nonetheless. (Id. at ¶¶ 50-51). Defendant Lorraine represented Plaintiff at the hearing. (Id. at ¶ 53).
At the hearing, Defendant Plumb testified that Plaintiff recanted his injury report and submitted a written statement to his foreman that read, in relevant part: (Hearing Tr. 16:20-24). Plaintiff did not call any witnesses, though he had the opportunity to do so. (Id. at 19:12-19). Plaintiff testified at the hearing that his December 2010 injury occurred "[o]ff the job" "through a dog bite"; that he falsified an injury report "on impulse" due to the pressures of his personal life at the time; and that he "just messed up." (Id. at 21:22, 22:16-23:11). Defendant Lorraine then made a brief closing statement in which he pleaded for leniency toward Plaintiff. (Id. at 24:4-16).
Plaintiff complains of two deficiencies in the hearing procedures: First, he challenges Defendant Walker's admission of an out-of-court statement made by a Metro-North employee. Specifically, during his direct examination byWalker, Defendant Plumb was permitted to testify about a statement made to him by another Metro-North employee, Cornell Williams, in the course of Plumb's investigation. (SAC ¶ 52; Hearing Tr. 15:7-14). Plumb testified that Williams told him that Plaintiff informed "everybody in the locker room" that he "got bit by a dog." (SAC ¶ 52; Hearing Tr. 15:7-14). Defendant Lorraine objected to the admission of this testimony without requiring Williams to appear as a witness and submit to cross-examination. Walker denied Lorraine's request to cross-examine Williams, reasoning that the statement was admissible as part of Plumb's investigation file. (SAC ¶ 53; Hearing Tr. 15:15-16:16). Second, Plaintiff challenges the fact that he was compelled to participate in the hearing on that day. He claims to have suffered from "pain, dizziness, light-headedness[,] and symptoms of unsteadiness" throughout the hearing, but neither Lorraine nor Walker asked Plaintiff questions to assess his ability to proceed with the trial. (Id. at ¶¶ 54-55). On these facts, Plaintiff alleges that he was "deprived of a fair [d]isciplinary [h]earing." (Id. at ¶ 73).
Plaintiff further alleges that, at the end of the hearing, Defendants Walker, Lorraine, and Plumb, along with Defendants Andrew Hodes (Assistant Director of Labor Relations at Metro-North) and Nancy Eischen (Arbitrator) left the hearing room and had a conversation in the hallway. (SAC ¶ 57).3 Plaintiff claims that this conversation furthered a conspiracy between and amongDefendants Eischen, Lorraine, Hodes, and Plumb to "unjustly and unconstitutionally terminat[e] Plaintiff's employment," because "[i]t was apparent that the Defendants had a [d]iscussion concerning the Plaintiff[] without the Plaintiff being present." (Id. at ¶¶ 75-77).4
One week after the hearing, on December 5, 2012, Metro-North issued a Notice of Discipline ordering Plaintiff's immediate dismissal for (i) absence from his assigned work location, (ii) falsification of an injury, and (iii) conduct unbecoming of a Metro-North employee. (SAC, Ex. 15). On December 11, 2012, the TWUA filed an appeal of Plaintiff's termination. (SAC ¶ 60). On February 7, 2013, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant Hodes informing him that his appeal had been denied. (SAC, Ex. 22-23).5 Hodes's letter explained that Metro-North had held a conference on January 11, 2013, at which the TWUA argued that Plaintiff's dismissal was "excessive" because Plaintiff had merely "made a mistake when he falsely reported he was injured while at work"; Hodes observed, however, that it was "undisputed" that Plaintiff had "filed a false injury claim," and that Metro-North had found "sufficient testimony and evidence to sustain the charges." (SAC ¶ 61; id. at Ex. 22-23). On February 11, 2013, the TWUA appealed Metro-North's decision to theSpecial Board of Adjustment. (SAC ¶ 62). On August 29, 2014, Defendant Board Chair Nancy Eischen upheld Plaintiff's dismissal. (Id. at ¶ 63).
Plaintiff claims that Metro-North engaged in selective enforcement of its policies as evidenced by its leniency toward two employees — Gibson Bratts and Mario Suazo — who committed the same offense as Plaintiff. (SAC ¶ 72). On October 16, 2008, Bratts was charged with conduct unbecoming of a Metro-North employee for...
To continue reading
Request your trial