Figueroa v. Foster
| Decision Date | 12 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | 1:14-cv-8796-GHW |
| Parties | HECTOR FIGUEROA, President, SEIU Local 32BJ, CTW, CLC, Plaintiff, v. HELEN DIANE FOSTER, Commissioner, New York State Division of Human Rights, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
The Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ ("Local 32BJ" or the "Local") represents over 81,000 New York employees. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreements to which it is a party, the Local demands arbitration of approximately 1,000 disputes involving employee discipline each year. The New York State Human Rights Division ("SDHR") receives and investigates thousands of complaints of unlawful discriminatory practices annually, including over 4,000 complaints related to alleged discrimination in the workplace that are dual-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").1 A fraction of those complaints—less than four annually, or one-tenth of one percent—contain allegations that the Local discriminated against a rank-and-file member, typically in the context of the grievance and arbitration process.2
Plaintiff Hector Figueroa, President of Local 32BJ, brings this suit against Defendant Helen Diane Foster, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the SDHR, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, Figueroa asks this Court to issue declaratory judgment, finding that a labor organization's duty of fair representation under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA")preempts claims made against it under the New York Human Rights Law ("HRL"), when the labor organization was acting in its capacity as a collective bargaining representative. He further seeks injunctive relief to prevent the SDHR from investigating such claims against Local 32BJ. SDHR contends that it has jurisdiction over such claims, and that, even in the event the Court finds the HRL preempted, the injunctive relief sought is unwarranted.
For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment is granted, his request for a permanent injunction is denied, and Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied.
The SDHR is responsible for the administration of the HRL, which prohibits various forms of discriminatory practices, including discrimination by labor organizations. Amended Joint Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Facts ("JS") ¶ 2, ECF No. 69; N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(1)(c), (e), (1-a), (3)(a), (7), (19)(a).3 The Local is an unincorporated organization which exists primarily for the purpose of collective bargaining and dealing with employers regarding grievances, labor disputes, and terms or conditions of employment. JS ¶ 5. Currently, the Local represents over 81,000 employees in New York State. JS ¶ 7. The Local is a "labor organization" within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 152(5), and the HRL, N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(3). JS ¶¶ 5, 8.
Each collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") to which Local 32BJ is a party includes a mechanism for resolving disputes that may arise between the Local and the employer under the agreement, including disputes regarding discipline or termination of employees. JS ¶ 10. The Local may file a grievance regarding an action or inaction by the employer, and typically the CBA provides a procedure by which representatives of the parties attempt to resolve the dispute, often throughmeetings. Id. If the dispute is not resolved to Local 32BJ's satisfaction, under the CBA it has a right to arbitrate the dispute. Id.
Union members notify the Local when they believe they have been treated unfairly, and the Local evaluates and investigates requests to file grievances, attempts to resolve grievances, and determines whether to demand arbitration of unresolved grievances. JS ¶ 11. In some cases, it decides not to demand arbitration over a disputed employee termination or disciplinary action. JS ¶ 12.
Employees who believe they have been the victims of unlawful discrimination, by an employer or a labor organization, may bring claims to the SDHR or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), which is responsible for the administration of Title VII and other federal anti-discrimination laws. JS ¶ 17. The two agencies serve as each other's agents for receiving and investigating complaints, and when an employee files a complaint that contains both federal and state claims, it is assigned both a federal and state charge number. Id. Responsibility for handling claims is divided between SDHR and the EEOC through a Worksharing Agreement. Id.; Guardiola Decl. in Op. to Pl.'s Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Ex. A, ECF No. 21-1 (" "). The vast majority of these complaints are filed by pro se complainants. JS ¶ 18.
The HRL requires SDHR to determine "whether it has jurisdiction and, if so, whether there is probable cause" to believe that the respondent(s) named in the complaint "engaged or [are] engaging in an unlawful discriminatory practice." JS ¶ 20; N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(2)(a). The SDHR's Rules of Practice provide that "[i]f the division finds, . . . with respect to any respondent or charge, that it lacks jurisdiction . . . , the complaint shall be dismissed as to such respondent, or charge," but, in practice, when multiple claims are raised against a single respondent and SDHR only has jurisdiction over some of them it will not sever claims, it will simply state in its final determination that it has no jurisdiction over certain claims. Downey Affirmation ¶¶ 43-47, ECF No. 43; JS ¶ 21, 9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 465.5(d)(1).
After a complaint is filed with SDHR, an intake specialist collects relevant information and documentation from the complainant, and an investigator gathers evidence and drafts a report outlining the issues and evidence in a case, as well as reasons for a "probable cause" or "no probable cause" determination. JS ¶¶ 22-25. The investigator or the investigator's supervisor then drafts a separate document known as a Basis for Determination that analyzes the facts and recommends an outcome. JS ¶ 26. A SDHR Regional Director then reviews the recommendations and makes the SDHR's determination as to both jurisdiction and the existence of probable cause. JS ¶ 27; 9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 465.8(a).
The Local has identified 23 complaints filed with the SDHR since mid-2009 in which the Local was alleged to have discriminated against an employee member and was named as a respondent.4 JS ¶¶ 35, 49; Exs. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 45, 55, 58, 61, 64, 67. Each of those complaints was filed against Local 32BJ in its capacity as the complainant's collective bargaining representative, and involved one or more allegations that the Local failed to demand arbitration, failed to handle an arbitration properly, or engaged in some other discriminatory conduct in its role as collective bargaining representative, in violation of the HRL. JS ¶ 35.5 All but one of those complaints were dual-filed with the EEOC. Id.
The Local has consistently made written submissions to SDHR in connection with such complaints in which it argues that its duty of fair representation ("DFR") arising from the NLRA "preempted the SDHR's investigation and prosecution of the administrative complaint and deprived it of jurisdiction over such a complaint." JS ¶ 36. SDHR has disagreed, and has continued to investigate and issue final determinations in such cases. Id.; see, e.g., Ex. 6. Notwithstanding the Local's position that SDHR lacks jurisdiction to pursue claims of breach of the duty of fairrepresentation against it, it has had to expend resources to defend itself—170 hours of attorney time by members of its in-house legal department and over 30 hours of union staff members' time—in connection with the twenty-three complaints. JS ¶ 45.
On November 14, 2014, Mr. Foster filed this lawsuit, and subsequently moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining SDHR from enforcing the HRL against Local 32BJ in its capacity as a collective bargaining representative, which motion this Court denied on February 3, 2015. Thereafter, the parties agreed that they would stipulate to and file a joint 56.1 statement of undisputed facts, and cross-moved for summary judgment.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a party is entitled to summary judgment if it "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The moving party bears the burden of showing that it is entitled to summary judgment. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the Court must "resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought." Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Stern v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 131 F.3d 305, 312 (2d Cir. 1997)).
The same standard applies to cross-motions for summary judgment. "[E]ach party's motion must be examined on its own merits, and in each case all reasonable inferences must be drawn against the party whose motion is under consideration." Morales v. Quintel Entm't, Inc., 249 F.3d 115, 121 (2d Cir. 2001).
The material facts in this case are undisputed. Instead, the parties disagree over a specific, narrow, legal question: does a union's duty of fair representation preempt the application of the HRL when the union is acting in its capacity as a collective bargaining representative?
Unions owe the employees they represent a duty of fair representation in enforcing collective bargaining agreements. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 177 (1967). "[W]hen a union's conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary,...
To continue reading
Request your trial