Goldstein v. Prof'l Staff Congress
| Decision Date | 30 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 22 Civ. 321 (PAE) |
| Parties | AVRAHAM GOLDSTEIN et al., Plaintiffs, v. PROFESSIONAL STAFF CONGRESS/CUNY et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
AVRAHAM GOLDSTEIN et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF CONGRESS/CUNY et al., Defendants.
No. 22 Civ. 321 (PAE)
United States District Court, S.D. New York
November 30, 2022
OPINION & ORDER
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
This case involves First Amendment challenges by professors at a public university to their compulsory inclusion in a bargaining group and consequent representation by a union whose political advocacy the professors claim to abhor. The six plaintiffs are faculty members (the “professors”) employed by the City University of New York (“CUNY”). For purposes of collective bargaining, the professors are exclusively represented by the Professional Staff Congress/CUNY (the “PSC”). The professors, however, have denounced the PSC's political advocacy, particularly on issues relating to Israel and Palestine, and have resigned from the PSC. In this lawsuit against the PSC, CUNY, the City of New York (the “City”), and affiliated individuals, the professors claim that New York state law governing public sector unions violates their First Amendment speech and associational rights insofar as it compels them to be represented in collective bargaining by the PSC. Relatedly, they challenge a 2019 amendment to state law, which allows the PSC to forego representing non-members in individualized proceedings, such as investigations, grievances, and disciplinary hearings.
Pending now are motions to dismiss from the PSC, CUNY, and individual defendants Thomas DiNapoli, John Wirenius, Rosemary A.[1] Townley, and Anthony Zumbolo.' These take aim at all three counts in the Complaint: Count One, which challenges the professors' compelled association with the PSC; Count Two, which challenges the professors' compelled association with other faculty and staff in the same bargaining unit; and Count Three, which challenges certain plaintiffs' compelled financial support of the PSC through wage deductions that allegedly continued to be made after their resignations from the PSC. The motions addressed to Counts One and Two are brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); those addressed to Count Three are brought under Rule 12(b)(1).
For the following reasons, the Court grants the motions to dismiss Counts One and Two, and denies the motion to dismiss Count Three as moot, on account of concessions by the parties and one plaintiffs acceptance of an offer of judgment that together have significantly narrowed the scope of that Count.
I. Background
A. Factual Background[2]
1. New York's System of Exclusive Representation and the PSC
New York State's Public Employees' Fair Employment Act, N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law §§ 200, et seq. (the “Taylor Law”), puts in place an exclusive representation model of collective
bargaining. Under the Taylor Law, the Public Employee Relations Board (“PERB”) separates public employees into distinct “bargaining units”[3] for the purpose of collective bargaining. See id. § 207. A bargaining unit comprises a group of public employees that share “a community of interest” with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment. Id. § 207.1(a). A bargaining unit (or units) is then represented by a union after the union's certification or recognition by the state. See id. § 204.2. That union, under the Taylor Law, then has exclusive legal authority to speak for all employees in its bargaining unit or units. See id. § 204.
On June 16, 1972, PERB certified the PSC-a union-to represent a bargaining unit containing approximately 30,000 members of CUNY's instructional staff. See Compl. ¶¶ 57, 60. The PSC and CUNY have entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) and Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) that, along with other agreements, today control many terms and conditions of the employment of the covered instructors. Id. ¶ 24; see also id., Exs. A (CBA), B (MOA).
The bargaining unit today includes the six plaintiffs: Avraham Goldstein (“Goldstein”), Michael Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, Mitchell Langbert, Jeffrey Lax, and Maria Pagano. See id. ¶¶ 58, 60. Each has resigned from the PSC. See id. ¶¶ 10-15, 47. Under a 2019 amendment to the Taylor Law, the union owes them, as non-members whom it represents in
collective bargaining, a duty of fair representation “limited to the negotiation or enforcement of the terms of an agreement with [their] public employer.” N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law § 209-a.2(c). However, the PSC is not required to provide representation to non-union members of the bargaining unit, in circumstances involving “questioning by the employer,” id. § 209-a.2(c)(i), “in statutory or administrative proceedings or to enforce statutory or regulatory rights,” id. § 209. a.2(c)(ii), or “in any stage of a grievance, arbitration or other contractual process concerning the evaluation or discipline of a public employee where the non-member is permitted to proceed without the employee organization and be represented by his or her own advocate,” id. § 209-a.2(c)(iii). Further, a union is permitted to “provid[e] legal, economic or job-related services or benefits beyond those provided in the agreement with a public employer only to its members.” Id. § 209-a.2.
B. The CUNY Professors' Relationship with-and Opposition to-the PSC
The six plaintiffs are full-time instructional staff employed by CUNY. Compl. ¶ 1. The details of their employment vary-some are tenured professors, others are adjunct lecturers, and they teach across several CUNY schools, in subjects including accounting, math, and business. Id. ¶¶ 10-15. Each, however, is included in the instructional staff bargaining unit that the PSC exclusively represents. See id. ¶ 23.
For two reasons, plaintiffs seek to shed the PSC as their representative in collective bargaining.
First, plaintiffs, all but one of whom identify as Jewish, id. ¶ 3, “abhor” the PSC's political advocacy, id. ¶ 2, and stated positions on Israel and international affairs, id. ¶¶ 3, 27-35. In June 2021, after the PSC adopted a “Resolution in Support of the Palestinian People,” see Id. ¶ 3; see also id., Ex. C. (the “Resolution”), the five Jewish plaintiffs resigned, see id. ¶ 36, based on what they termed the PSC's “anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel” pronouncements, id.
¶ 3. The PSC's political advocacy, they stated, “harms the Jewish plaintiffs and singles them out for opprobrium, hatred, and harassment based on their religious, ethnic, and/or moral beliefs and identity.” Id. Relatedly, plaintiffs state, since the adoption of the Resolution, PSC members “have held chapter-level discussions, as required by the Resolution,” id. ¶ 41, on the subjects discussed in the Resolution; these meetings, plaintiffs state, have fomented anti-Jewish sentiment among other members of the union, id. Plaintiffs oppose the PSC's use of members' dues, including to support financially the Working Families Party and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Id. ¶ 45; see id. ¶ 30.
Second, plaintiffs state that the PSC's representation of them in negotiating employment terms and conditions has been low quality, causing them to lose confidence in the union. Id. ¶¶ 27, 46. The PSC, they state, has prioritized the economic and employment interests of parttime adjunct professors over those of full-time CUNY faculty and staff. Id. ¶ 46; see id. ¶¶ 28- 33. Plaintiffs also fault the PSC for treating them, as non-members, less favorably than PSC members of the bargaining unit, based on a recent Taylor Law amendment allowing unions to decline to represent non-members of the bargaining unit in individualized proceedings, such as investigations, grievances, and disciplinary hearings. Id. ¶¶ 53-56.
As of September 17, 2021, all six plaintiffs had resigned from the PSC. See id. ¶¶ 10-15. Nonetheless, plaintiffs claim, the City and DiNapoli continued to deduct dues for three plaintiffs following their resignations-Goldstein, id. ¶ 75, Kass-Shraibman, id. ¶ 76, and Langbert, id.- to transmit to the PSC.
C. Procedural History
On January 12, 2022, plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the PSC, CUNY, the City, and four individuals in their official capacities: Wirenius, PERB's chairperson; Townley and Zumbolo, each a PERB member; and DiNapoli, the New York State Comptroller. See generally
Compl. The Complaint brought First Amendment claims against the PSC, CUNY, and all individual defendants except DiNapoli; and claims of improper post-resignation dues deductions against the PSC, the City, and DiNapoli. On all counts, plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, plus attorneys' fees and costs. On March 9, 2022, the Court held an initial conference and granted a joint request to stay discovery pending resolution of the anticipated motions to dismiss. Dkt. 47.
On April 20, 2022, the Court received motions to dismiss and supporting memoranda from: (1) CUNY, DiNapoli, Townley, Wirenius, and Zumbolo (the “State Defendants”), Dkt. 55 (“State MTD”); (2) the PSC, Dkt. 58 (“PSC MTD”); and (3) the City, Dkt. 60. On May 24, 2022, plaintiffs filed a combined memorandum opposing these motions. Dkt. 64 (“Pl. Response MTD”). On June 14, 2022, the State Defendants and the PSC each filed a reply in support of dismissal, Dkts. 66, 68 (“PSC Reply MTD”). The City did not file a reply, but later filed a notice that Goldstein had accepted an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 as to his claims against the City of improper wage deductions. Dkts. 67, 77 (as refiled).
On September 28, 2022, the Court scheduled argument on Counts One and Two, and ordered the parties to file a joint letter as to Count Three's surviving scope. Dkt. 70. On October 7, 2022, the parties filed that letter. Dkt. 72. On October 26, 2022, the Court held argument on Counts One and Two. On November 2, 2022, the City filed a proposed judgment as to Goldstein's Count Three claim, Dkt. 77, which the Court entered the following day...
To continue reading
Request your trial