Medley v. Atl. Exposition Servs., Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 July 2021
• Docket Number: 1:20-cv-15847-NLH-KMW
• Citation: 550 F.Supp.3d 170
• Parties: Lamar MEDLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ATLANTIC EXPOSITION SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

550 F.Supp.3d 170

Lamar MEDLEY, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.ATLANTIC EXPOSITION SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-15847-NLH-KMW

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

Signed July 26, 2021

TIMOTHY CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER, HELMER, CONLEY & KASSELMAN, P.A., 111 WHITEHORSE PIKE, HADDON HEIGHTS, NJ 08035, On behalf of Plaintiffs.

EMILY J. DAHER, BALLARD SPAHR LLP, 700 EAST GATE DRIVE, SUITE 330, MOUNT LAUREL, NJ 08054-0015, STEVEN W. SUFLAS, BALLARD SPAHR LLP, ONE UTAH CENTER, Suite 800, 201 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111-2221, On behalf of Defendant Atlantic Exposition Services, Inc.

DAVID F. WATKINS, JR, KEVIN DOUGLAS JARVIS, O'BRIEN, BELLAND & BUSHINSKY, LLC, 509 S. LENOLA ROAD, BUILDING 6, MOORESTOWN, NJ 08057, On behalf of Defendant International Union of Painters, and Allied Trades AFL-CIO CLC District Council 711, a union and labor organization.

JUDITH SZNYTER, JENNINGS SIGMOND, 1835 MARKET STREET, SUITE 2800, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103, On behalf of Defendant International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Industry Pension Plan, as trustee of an E.R.I.S.A Pension Plan.

HILLMAN, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Atlantic Exposition Services, Inc., International Union of Painters, and Allied Trades AFL-CIO CLC District Council 711 ("the Union"), and International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Industry Pension Plan, as trustee of an E.R.I.S.A Pension Plan ("the Pension Fund"). In this action, Plaintiffs, a group of union laborers, allege that Defendants, their employer, their union, and a union pension fund, committed a series of violations of the Labor Management Relations Act, state common law, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Presently pending are Defendants’ three motions to dismiss, as well as a motion to seal filed by Plaintiffs. For the reasons expressed below, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal will be granted, Atlantic and the Union's motions to dismiss will be granted as to certain claims outlined herein, the Pension Fund's motion to dismiss will be denied as moot, and Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims will be remanded to state court.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Jose Luis Carreon, Luis Estrada, Charles Greenidge,¹ Rafael Flores, Matthew Chalakee, David Rolls, Lamar Medley, and Marlon Gibbs are a group of laborers who were previously employed by Atlantic Exposition Services and members of the Union. Plaintiffs primarily worked as warehouse employees for Atlantic, and each began working for the company on or before July 2013.

Plaintiffs each identify as either African American, Latino American, or Native American; in fact, with the exception of the Warehouse Foreman, who was white, Plaintiffs allege that all of Atlantic's warehouse employees were African American, Latino American, or Native American.

As union laborers, Plaintiffs’ employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement entered into by the Union on their behalf and Atlantic, which is titled the "Trade Show/Decorator Warehouse Agreement" (the "Warehouse Agreement" or "CBA"). The CBA provides terms governing Plaintiffs’ employment, wages, benefits, and the process by which they should pursue any grievances.

At some point prior to September 5, 2018, Plaintiffs noticed a series of issues related to their wages, pensions, and benefits. Specifically, Plaintiffs discovered that (1) Atlantic had been deducting "three (3) to five (5) percent of Plaintiffs’ gross pay from each paycheck due from the inception of their work with Atlantic Exposition" for either union dues or as a "check off" fee for the Union, (2) health insurance was not made available to them by Atlantic, (3) no pension or retirement benefits, vacation fund, or other benefits were made available to them by Atlantic, (4) pay for overtime was either miscalculated or withheld, (5) "monies for retroactive pay or increases in salary" were also withheld by Atlantic, and (6) the Union had withheld vacation funds that had been requested. Plaintiffs allege that unlike them, the one white warehouse employee, the Warehouse Foreman, has received the full benefit of his hours towards Pension and Annuity benefits.

Concerned about these issues, Plaintiffs wrote a letter on September 5, 2018 to Atlantic, the Union, and Defendant International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Industry Pension Plan, (the "Pension Fund"), an employee benefit plan as defined under the Employment Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The letter raised some or all of the issues mentioned above, and further requested an accounting of the hours worked by each employee and the category of work that was done. Neither Atlantic nor the Union ever responded to the September 2018 letter. Plaintiffs did receive a response from the Pension Fund, which stated that Plaintiffs’ CBA did not provide for contributions to the Pension Fund on their behalf or for contributions to any other ERISA benefit plan.

Several months later, on January 25, 2019, Plaintiffs Greenidge, Chalakee, Estrada, and Medley attempted to attend a Union meeting, hoping to discuss the possibility of negotiating a new CBA with their fellow Union members. The four Plaintiffs were ejected from the meeting however, and told it was because their union dues were not current; Plaintiffs assert that they were aware that the true reason for their being denied access to the meeting was their previous attempt to raise the issues mentioned above to a Union lawyer.

This was not the first time something like this had happened, as Plaintiff Greenidge had previously been denied access to a separate Union meeting on January 2, 2018. At some point prior to this incident, Plaintiffs appear to have retained counsel, and through their counsel they sent a second letter to Defendants on March 18, 2019, demanding to know why they were being denied the opportunity to provide input on a new CBA negotiation. No response to this letter was ever received.

While Plaintiffs allege that they all have requested that Atlantic or the Union address their concerns, only certain of the Plaintiffs have attempted to address these issues through official means. Despite the clear grievance process provided for in the CBA, Plaintiffs concede that only Medley, Greenidge, and Estrada have filed grievances with the Union, and only state that those grievances were related to the pension issues described above, rather than the rest of their concerns. Greenidge, however, went one step further: on April 27, 2018, he filed an unfair labor practices charge with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that the Union had "failed and refused to process the grievance of Charles Greenidge regarding the employer's failure to pay his pension, annuity, vacation, and health benefits for reasons that are arbitrary, discriminatory, or otherwise in bad faith." (ECF No. 09-4, Ex. A).

Finally, on March 14, 2020, Plaintiffs were each terminated by Atlantic. Six months later, on September 14, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in New Jersey Superior Court, which the Union properly removed to this Court on November 11, 2020. (ECF No. 1). All three defendants then proceeded to submit motions to dismiss the claims against them. (ECF No. 9, 12, and 18). Plaintiffs filed a joint brief in opposition to the three motions, (ECF No. 24), which Defendants followed with briefs in further support of their motions shortly after. (ECF No. 27, 28, and 29).

A few months later, Plaintiffs filed a motion to seal a document that was attached to the initial Complaint filed in state court and then attached along with Defendants’ removal papers on this docket, which they stated was accidentally attached in lieu of the CBA Plaintiffs meant to file as their central exhibit. That motion is unopposed, and the time to file an opposition to it has since passed. The four pending motions are therefore ripe for adjudication.

DISCUSSION

I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

II. Standard for Motions to Dismiss

When considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 351 (3d Cir. 2005). It is well settled that a pleading is sufficient if it contains "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

"While a complaint 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 ...." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (alteration in original) (citations omitted) (first citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) ; Sanjuan v. Am. Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1994) ; and then citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) ).

To determine the sufficiency of a complaint, a court must take three steps: (1) the court must take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) the court should identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief. Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664, 675, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ) (alterations, quotations, and other ...