Delprince v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | 1:18-CV-00648 EAW |
| Citation | 373 F.Supp.3d 409 |
| Parties | Richard J. DELPRINCE, Petitioner, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Kenneth R. Hiller, Mary Ellen Gill, Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller, Amherst, NY, for Petitioner.
Dennis J. Canning, Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration, Kansas City, MO, James Desir, Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel, New York, NY, for Respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER
Petitioner Richard J. DelPrince ("Petitioner") filed this action on June 7, 2018, requesting judicial review of an arbitration award rendered pursuant to the mandatory arbitration procedures of the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. § 153, First (q), that sustained the decision of respondent Norfolk Southern Railway Company ("Norfolk Southern" or "Respondent") to discharge Petitioner from employment. (Dkt. 1). Presently before the Court are two motions to dismiss: one brought by Kelvin Lockhart, James Ogle, Joshua Lafferty, and John Maskovac pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) on August 29, 2018 (Dkt. 12); and one brought by Norfolk Southern pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on September 19, 2018 (Dkt. 18). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the September 19, 2018, motion (Dkt. 18), and denies the August 29, 2018, motion (Dkt. 12) as moot.
The following facts are taken from Petitioner's Amended Petition (Dkt. 30), the operative pleading in this matter, and the documents referenced therein.1 As is required at this stage of the proceedings, the Court treats Petitioner's allegations as true.
Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a locomotive engineer for 18 years. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 13). On February 3, 2016, Petitioner was working as the engineer on a train travelling between Binghamton and Buffalo, New York. (Id. at ¶ 13). He noticed that the locomotive had a problem with its sanders,2 and he attempted to report the problem to the dispatcher on the company-provided radio which was not working properly. (Id. ). He then used his personal cellphone to call the dispatcher instead and was told to proceed with his assignment. (Id. ). Petitioner placed his cellphone in his jacket pocket and hung the jacket on the back of his seat, but forgot to turn it off. (Id. at ¶¶ 13, 15).
Petitioner's train approached an unannounced banner test, which is when railroad officials drop an "obstruction banner" in front of moving trains to test the engineer's ability to stop. (Id. at ¶ 18). Petitioner properly stopped his locomotive, and three of Respondent's officials boarded the train to conduct a job briefing. (Dkt. 1-1 at 3). When the railroad officials asked whether Petitioner's cellphone was turned off, he said that he did not know and then removed the phone from his jacket pocket. (Id. ). It was determined that the cellphone was still on, and Petitioner was later removed from service and underwent a formal investigation. (Id at 3-4). At the conclusion of the investigation, Respondent summarily fired Petitioner. (Dkt. 30 at ¶ 19).
Petitioner appealed Respondent's decision to Public Law Board No. 7717 (the "Board"). (Dkt. 1-1 at 2). On May 2, 2017, the Board sustained the decision to dismiss Petitioner from employment. (Dkt. 30 at ¶ 1). It found Petitioner was in violation of Respondent's Operating Rule 5, which requires, pursuant to federal regulations, that "all personal electronic devices, including earpieces, must be turned off and stored out of sight and not on the employee's person when on a moving train or engine[.]" (Dkt. 1-1 at 4); see 49 C.F.R. §§ 220.302, 220.305, 220.315. The decision stated: "It is not an acceptable excuse that [Petitioner]'s failure to turn off his phone might have been inadvertent," and also discussed Petitioner's previous disciplinary record. (Dkt. 1-1 at 4-5).
Petitioner filed the instant lawsuit on June 7, 2018, naming as respondents W.L. Sturgis, K. Lockhart, J.P. Ogle, Josh Lafferty, John J. Maskovac, and the Board. (Dkt. 1). On August 29, 2018, respondents Kelvin Lockhart, James Ogle, Joshua Lafferty, and John Maskovac filed a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 12). Petitioner filed an amended petition on September 5, 2018, wherein Norfolk Southern was named as the only respondent. (Dkt. 15). Norfolk Southern filed a motion to dismiss on September 19, 2018. (Dkt. 18). On November 13, 2018, Petitioner filed a response to Respondent's motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 27). Petitioner also filed a motion for leave to file a corrected amended petition to fix a scanning error causing a missing page, to which Respondent consented. (Dkt. 28). The Court granted Petitioner leave to file the corrected amended petition (Dkt. 29), and the complete Amended Petition was then filed on November 15, 2018 (Dkt. 30). Respondent filed its reply to Petitioner's response on November 20, 2018. (Dkt. 31).
As a preliminary matter, while the original petition did name Kelvin Lockhart, James Ogle, Joshua Lafferty, and John Muskovac as respondents (Dkt. 1), the Amended Petition (Dkt. 30) only names Norfolk Southern. Accordingly, the Court denies as moot the August 29, 2018, motion to dismiss (Dkt. 12).
"In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court may consider the facts alleged in the [petition], documents attached to the [petition] as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the [petition]." DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C , 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010). A court should consider the motion by "accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Trs. of Upstate N.Y. Eng'rs Pension Fund v. Ivy Asset Mgmt. , 843 F.3d 561, 566 (2d Cir. 2016), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 2279, 198 L.Ed.2d 703 (2017). To withstand dismissal, a claimant must set forth "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Turkmen v. Ashcroft , 589 F.3d 542, 546 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ).
"While a [petition] attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (internal quotations and citations omitted). "To state a plausible claim, the [petition]'s ‘[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’ " Nielsen v. AECOM Tech. Corp. , 762 F.3d 214, 218 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).
Congress enacted the RLA "to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes" between railway carriers and their employees. 45 U.S.C. § 151a. To accomplish this, the RLA imposes different dispute resolution procedures for "major" and "minor" disputes. See United Transp. Union v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. , 588 F.3d 805, 809 (2d Cir. 2009). A dispute is considered "major" if it relates " ‘to disputes over the formation of collective agreements or efforts to secure them,’ while ‘minor disputes’ ‘contemplate[ ] the existence of a collective agreement already concluded or, at any rate, a situation in which no effort is made to bring about a formal change in terms or to create a new one.’ " Id. at 809-10 (quoting Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co. v. Burley , 325 U.S. 711, 723, 65 S.Ct. 1282, 89 L.Ed. 1886 (1945) ).
"Major" disputes require "voluntary processes of negotiation, mediation, voluntary arbitration, and conciliation" and are subject to judicial review on the merits. Id. (quoting Elgin , 325 U.S. at 725, 65 S.Ct. 1282 ); see Consol Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Execs.' Ass'n , 491 U.S. 299, 302-03, 109 S.Ct. 2477, 105 L.Ed.2d 250 (1989). In contrast, minor disputes are exclusively handled by labor-management adjustment boards—either the National Labor Relations Board, or regional boards of adjustment established by agreement between employees and carriers. 45 U.S.C. § 184, see Indep. Union of Flight Attendants v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. , 789 F.2d 139, 141 (2d Cir. 1986). The Second Circuit has held that "disciplinary disputes even if involving employee discharge" are minor disputes. Pan Am. World Airways , 789 F.2d at 141.
The RLA allows for limited judicial review of a labor board's ruling on a minor dispute, providing as follows:
On such review, the findings and order of the division shall be conclusive on the parties, except that the order of the division may be set aside, in whole or in part, or remanded to the division, for [1] failure of the division to comply with the requirements of this chapter, for [2] failure of the order to conform, or confine itself, to matters within the scope of the division's jurisdiction, or for [3] fraud or corruption by a member of the division making the order.
45 U.S.C. § 153, First (q).
The scope of judicial review of a labor board's decision is "among the narrowest known to the law." Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Sheehan , 439 U.S. 89, 91, 99 S.Ct. 399, 58 L.Ed.2d 354 (1978) (quotation omitted). "[W]here fraud is not an issue we ask only whether the arbitrators did the job they were told to do—not whether they did it well, or correctly, or reasonably, but simply whether they did it." CSX Transp., Inc. v. United Transp. Union , 950 F.2d 872, 877 (2d Cir. 1991) ; see United Transp. Union , 588 F.3d at 810 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial