Naughton v. Local 804 Union

• Decision Date: 01 March 2019
• Docket Number: 18-CV-2830 (MKB)
• Parties: REGINALD NAUGHTON, Plaintiff, v. LOCAL 804 UNION, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, EDDIE VILLALTA, MARK JOHNSON, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, JOHN REINWALD, and DAN DALY, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

REGINALD NAUGHTON, Plaintiff,
v.
LOCAL 804 UNION, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
EDDIE VILLALTA, MARK JOHNSON, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, JOHN REINWALD,
and DAN DALY, Defendants.

18-CV-2830 (MKB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 1, 2019

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Reginald Naughton, proceeding pro se, commenced the above-captioned action against the Local 804 Union (the "Local 804"), International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("IBT"), Eddie Villalta, Mark Johnson, United Parcel Service ("UPS"), John Reinwald, and Dan Daly on May 15, 2018, pursuant to section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et. seq., ("NLRA"), section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185 ("LMRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the applicable collective bargaining agreements, section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1) (the "FAA"), alleging unlawful discharge and unfair labor practices, as well as section 1001 of the federal criminal laws, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), and a state law fraud claim. (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on June 19, 2018, with almost identical claims.¹ (Am. Compl., Docket Entry No. 19.) The Court grants Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for the purpose of this Memorandum and Order.

Page 2

Currently before the Court are separate motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted by UPS, Reinwald, and Daly (collectively, the "UPS Defendants"), and Local 804, IBT,² Villalta, and Johnson,³ pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to amend the Amended Complaint.⁴ Plaintiff opposes Defendants' motions.⁵ For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the Amended Complaint and denies Plaintiff's motion for leave to file the proposed second amended complaint. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file a corrected, proposed second amended complaint within thirty (30) days of this

Page 3

Memorandum and Order.

I. Background

The Court assumes the truth of the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint for the purposes of this Memorandum and Order. In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court also considers and assumes the truth of the factual allegations in Plaintiff's opposition and supplemental opposition.⁶

Plaintiff was an employee of UPS and a member of Local 804, a chapter of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. (Am. Compl. 4-5.) Defendants are Plaintiff's former employer, union, and individual co-workers and other union members. (Id. at 2-4.) Defendants Villalta and Johnson are the President and Business Agent of Local Union 804, respectively. (Id. at 2-3.) Defendants Reinwald and Daly serve as a Division Manager and Labor Manager of UPS, respectively. (Id. at 3-4.)

In or about August of 1996, UPS hired Plaintiff as a pre-loader assigned to the Foster Avenue facility. (Id. at 4.) In or about October of 2005, UPS promoted Plaintiff to a full-time driver. (Id.)

At some point during his employment, Local 804 and Villalta "promised [union] members upon being elected into office to serve as their union president" and that their "'top priority is to provide the best possible representation for each and every member of local 804.'" (Id. 5-6.) This promise was made "[i]n exchange for the members voting [Villata] in and paying

Page 4

union dues each pay period for that representation."⁷ (Id. at 6.)

On April 6, 2017, UPS terminated Plaintiff for tardiness. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that his discharge was "without just cause" and in violation of Article 12, sections 1 and 2 of the Local Agreement⁸ and the LMRA. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that, on April 10, 2017, after he was terminated, UPS issued him "another notice of discharge for (unproven) dishonesty" in violation of Article 12, sections 1 and 2⁹ of the Local Agreement and the LMRA. (Id.) Plaintiff did not admit to being dishonest and UPS did not provide evidence of dishonesty. (Id.; Pl. Opp'n to UPS Mot. 2.)

After Plaintiff's termination, Local 804 filed a grievance with UPS on Plaintiff's behalf. (Local 804 Grievance Form, annexed to the declaration of Christopher S. Baluzy ("Baluzy Decl.") as Ex. C, Docket Entry No. 28-5.) After unsuccessful resolution between the Local 804 and UPS, Local 804 submitted Plaintiff's grievance to the UPS/Local 804 Panel (the "Panel") for

Page 5

a final and binding determination.¹⁰ (Local 804 and UPS Grievance Panel Grievance Filing Form ("Panel Grievance Filing Form"), annexed to Baluzy Decl. as Ex. D, Docket Entry No. 28-6.)

On July 25, 2017, the Panel conducted a hearing, denied the grievance, and upheld Plaintiff's termination. (Grievance Panel Decision ("Panel Decision"), annexed to Baluzy Decl. as Ex. E, Docket Entry No. 28-7.) Plaintiff alleges that on or about "June or July 25, 2017," Local 804 breached its "duty to fairly represent" him by "failing to process" his grievance and by failing to mention during their opening statement that UPS violated "Plaintiff's right to remain on the job with pay pending his Arbitration." (Am. Compl. 5; Pl. Opp'n 2.) Plaintiff also alleges that Local 804 failed to invoke Article 7¹¹ of the NMA and that "his employer failed to file a complaint against [Local 804] for failing to negotiate in good faith." (Am. Compl. 5; Pl. Opp'n 2.)

By letter dated August 25, 2017 and addressed to Mark Johnson, Plaintiff requested "a complete transcript of [his] arbitration . . .[,] evidence [his] union along with the company present[ed] during the investigation," and "the arbitrator's full name and written response to the

Page 6

case."¹² (Letter to Mark Johnson, annexed to Baluzy Decl. as Ex. F., Docket Entry No. 28-8.) Plaintiff alleges that, on or about August 31, 2017, Local 804 breached its "duty to fairly represent" him by both "failing to invoke Article 7, of the [NMA]," and "failing to process" his grievance. (Am. Compl. 5.)

On or about January 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") against Local 804 for refusing to provide the documents he requested. (Id. at 6-7.) On or about February 9, 2018, Local 804 provided the documents to Plaintiff and Plaintiff withdrew his January 2, 2018 NLRB charge. (Id. at 7.)

On or about May 8, 2018, Plaintiff "discovered that [Local 804] breached its duty of fair representation after the Plaintiff discovered that [Local 804] had failed to produce all the requested documents" to him. (Id.) Plaintiff filed another unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB against Local 804 for breaching its duty of fair representation.¹³ (Id.)

On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a charge with the NLRB against UPS for wrongful discharge and against Local 804 for failure to provide the requested documents. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action five days later, on May 16, 2018. (Id.)

Page 7

II. Discussion

a. Standard of review

In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must construe the complaint liberally, "accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Kim v. Kimm, 884 F.3d 98, 103 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Chambers v. Time Warner Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002)); see also Tsirelman v. Daines, 794 F.3d 310, 313 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Jaghory v. N.Y. State Dep't of Educ., 131 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir. 1997)). A complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)); see also Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. ex rel. St. Vincent Catholic Med. Ctrs. Ret. Plan v. Morgan Stanley Inv. Mgmt. Inc., 712 F.3d 705, 717-18 (2d Cir. 2013). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed true, this principle is "inapplicable to legal conclusions" or "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court must be mindful that a plaintiff's pleadings should be held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); see Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that even after Twombly, the court "remain[s] obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally").

Page 8

b. Documents considered by the Court in deciding the motion

In addition to the Amended Complaint, Local 804 relies on the NMA, the Local Agreement, the Local 804 Grievance Form, the Panel Grievance Submission Form, the Panel Decision, and Plaintiff's August 25, 2017 letter to Mark Johnson. (Local 804 Mem. 3-5.) Local 804 argues that the NMA and Local Agreement are integral to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint because "Plaintiff repeatedly cites certain articles from the [NMA and Local Agreement]" and "the [NMA and Local Agreement] set forth the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment with UPS." (Local 804 Mem. 3 n.3.) Local 804 also argues that the UPS Grievance Form is integral "to the Amended Complaint because it was a necessary pre-condition to the arbitration hearing involving Plaintiff's termination" and further argues that the Panel Grievance Submission Form is integral to the Amended Complaint because it "framed the issues to be heard at the hearing." (Local 804 Mem. 3 nn.6-7.) In addition, Defendants argue that "the [Panel Decision] is 'integral' to...