Ford v. D.C. 37 Union Local 1549
Decision Date | 25 August 2009 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 08-2317-cv. |
Citation | 579 F.3d 187 |
Parties | Roxanne FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. 37 UNION LOCAL 1549, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Robin Roach, Senior Assistant General Counsel, District Counsel 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, CALABRESI and RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Roxanne Ford, pro se, appeals the district court's judgment granting the defendant's motion to dismiss Appellant's complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation under the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185 et seq., for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
This Court reviews de novo a district court decision dismissing a complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), construing the complaint liberally and accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true. See Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir.2006). Dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) is proper "when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it." Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000).
As the language of the LMRA makes plain, public employees are not covered by that statute. See 29 U.S.C. § 152(2) ( ). The point is sufficiently clear so that it has been routinely addressed by summary orders. See Baumgart v. Stony Brook Children's Serv., P.C., 249 Fed. Appx. 851, 852 (2d Cir.2007) (unpublished); Majeske v. Congress of Conn. Comty. Colls., No. 98-7226, 166 F.3d 1200, 1998 WL 907915, at *2 n. 2 (2d Cir.1998); Smith v. United Fed'n of Teachers, 162 F.3d 1148, 1998 WL 639756, at *1 (2d Cir.1998). The Supreme Court has also taken this view, which we are bound to follow. See N.L.R.B. v. Natural Gas Util. Dist. of Hawkins County, Tenn., 402 U.S. 600, 602-03, 91 S.Ct. 1746, 29 L.Ed.2d 206 (1971) ( ); see also Police Dep't of the City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 102 n. 9, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972) (). We deem it appropriate to issue a published opinion and thereby make clear beyond peradventure that this is the law of our Circuit.
Appellant claims, on appeal, that her employer is not a political subdivision of New York and questions whether it was a mayoral agency. It is clear to us, however, that the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is a "political subdivision" of New York that is exempt under § 152(2).
Furthermore, the district court did not err in failing to address any state law claim that the complaint could be construed to be raising. See 28 U.S.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Trivedi v. N.Y.S. Unified Court Sys. Office of Court Admin.
... ... Title VII and ADEA claims against their union, District Council 37 Local 1070 (DC 37). Drammeh, ... Dec. 21, 2010) (citing Ford v. D.C. 37 Union Local 1549, 579 F.3d 187, 188 ... ...
-
TZ Manor, LLC v. Daines
... ... recommendations and information from local or State agencies or other sources to make a ... [815 F.Supp.2d 734] Ford v. D.C. 37 Union Local 1549, 579 F.3d 187, 188 ... ...
-
Calle v. Acting Attorney Gen. Matthew G. Whitaker
... ... 2013) (quoting Ford v ... D ... C ... 37 Union Local 1549 , 579 F.3d 187, ... ...
-
Gill v. Arab Bank, PLC
... ... Washington University Law School, Washington, DC, Gary M. Osen, Aaron Schlanger, Osen LLC, ... , Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 8, at 37 (5th ed.1984). The concept of transferred intent ... AlAnsar placed advertisements in local newspapers encouraging eligible residents of the ... Ford v. D.C. 37 Union Local 1549, 579 F.3d 187, 188 ... ...