Roache v. Long Island R.R.

• Decision Date: 25 August 2020
• Docket Number: 18-cv-6443 (ENV) (JO)
• Parties: Magwin ROACHE, Plaintiff, v. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen Local 56, Michael Juchem, in his individual capacity, Charles Tator, in his individual capacity, John Hanania, in his individual capacity, Christopher Natale, in his individual capacity, and James Sokolowski, in his individual capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

487 F.Supp.3d 154

Magwin ROACHE, Plaintiff,

v.LONG ISLAND RAILROAD, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen Local 56, Michael Juchem, in his individual capacity, Charles Tator, in his individual capacity, John Hanania, in his individual capacity, Christopher Natale, in his individual capacity, and James Sokolowski, in his individual capacity, Defendants.

18-cv-6443 (ENV) (JO)

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed August 25, 2020

Filed September 17, 2020

Joseph Christopher Albanese, Michael P. Hilferty, White, Hilferty & Albanese P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Kevin Patrick McCaffrey, Law Dept, Jamaica, NY, for Defendants Long Island Railroad, John Hanania, Charles Tator, Michael Juchem.

Richard S. Edelman, Mooney, Green, Saindon, Murphy & Welch, P.C., Washington, DC, William L. Phillips, Pro Hac Vice, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Brotherhood of the Railroad Signalmen Local 56.

Marc Wietzke, Flynn & Wietzke, Garden City, NY, Richard S. Edelman, Mooney, Green, Saindon, Murphy & Welch, P.C., Washington, DC, William L. Phillips, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, Chicago, IL, for Defendants Christopher Natale, James Sokolowski.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

VITALIANO, D.J.

Plaintiff Magwin Roache brings this action against Long Island Railroad ("LIRR") and Michael Juchem, Charles Tator, and John Hanania, in their individual capacities (collectively, the "LIRR defendants"), as well as the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen Local 56 ("BRS," or the "union"), and Christopher Natale and James Sokolowski, in their individual capacities (collectively, the "union defendants"), asserting numerous instances of racial discrimination and retaliation arising out of his employment with LIRR and his membership in the union, in violation of federal, state, and municipal law. See generally Am. Compl., Dkt. 6. Defendants now move to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). For the reasons that follow, the union defendants’ motion is granted, and the LIRR defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Background

Roache, who is African American and of Caribbean descent, began working for LIRR as an assistant signalman in 2006. Am. Compl. at 3, ¶ 12; ¶¶ 1–2.¹ Roache has also been, at all relevant times, a member of BRS. Id. ¶ 3. The thrust of Roache's amended complaint is that, during his employment with LIRR, defendants repeatedly discriminated against him on the basis of his race and national origin, id. ¶ 4; refused to file formal grievances on his behalf to address the discrimination, id. ¶ 102; and retaliated against him after he filed grievances on his own behalf, id. ¶ 4.

More specifically, Roache contends that, from 2016 through 2018, he was overlooked for overtime opportunities on multiple occasions, and that, on at least two of these occasions, the opportunity was given to a less senior employee. Id. ¶¶ 7, 14, 17, 29, 49, 96, 101. In another instance of denied overtime, defendant Hanania, an LIRR supervisor, cancelled Roache's overtime shift after it had been scheduled by another supervisor. Id. ¶ 39.

The denial of overtime, however, was the tip of the iceberg, he says. In April 2016, Roache was instructed to "upgrade" from assistant foreman to foreman, but then-acting foreman Legg denied him the opportunity to comply with the upgrade. Id. ¶ 21. Nevertheless, Roache was promoted to the position of foreman of LIRR's Gang 25 in December of that year. Id. ¶ 34. Roache contends that Hanania then expressed that he should be removed from his position as foreman and stated that "people like [Roache] shouldn't be Foremen"—which Roache subjectively understood to mean people who are Black or of Caribbean descent—and that Hanania is "the Chief" and Roache is "the Indian." Id. ¶¶ 42–43. Then, in July 2017, defendants, in an effort to strip Roache of his foreman position, altered his schedule to force him to bid for his position, but, as the senior most qualified bidder, he was nevertheless awarded the position. Id. ¶ 50.

Roache also alleges defendants stonewalled his requests for time off. For example, in November of 2015, Roache was initially denied a time-off request for Thanksgiving, despite adhering to the collective bargaining agreement's ("CBA") requirement to find shift coverage. Id. ¶ 13. Only after the intervention of BRS Local Chairman James Ridley was Roache granted his request. Id. Roache further contends that defendants "subjected [him] to unwarranted citations and requirements," id. ¶ 4, and "disciplined [him] for reasons [they] did not discipline his Caucasian colleagues for." Id. ¶ 102. In one instance, Roache was issued a dereliction of duty charge for failing to secure coverage for an open position, when, he contends, he volunteered to cover the shift himself but was prevented from doing so by Hanania, who instructed Roache that he could only work if all other foremen and assistant foremen refused to cover the shift. Id. ¶ 45. Roache maintains that no other foremen were subjected to the same restriction. Id.

Roache was also issued disciplinary charges on four other occasions: once for failing to report work being done by a vendor, id. ¶ 57; once for failing to secure coverage of a shift by a qualifying foreman or assistant foreman, id. ¶ 60; once for failing to prepare tasks for technicians when he was out sick, id. ¶ 61; and once for a reason not clearly specified in the amended complaint, id. ¶ 75. Roache contends that other employees were not disciplined for similar infractions. Id. ¶¶ 45, 47, 57–58, 73.

Continuing his recounting of arbitrary enforcement, Roache contends that, on December 8, 2015, defendant Juchem, an LIRR principal, required Roache to schedule his vacation at the beginning of the year and to fill out vacation request forms. Id. ¶ 15. No such policy, according to plaintiff, was enforced with respect to other employees. Id. In addition, Hanania imposed certain email-reporting requirements on Roache's technicians, and he restricted where those technicians could eat lunch, but he did not impose similar requirements and restrictions on other technicians. Id. ¶¶ 48, 51–52, 54–55.

At some point prior to November 2017, Roache was demoted. Id. ¶ 80. Roache contends it is BRS's usual practice to represent Caucasian employees in the appeal of their demotion, but that defendant Natale, BRS general chairman, was instructed by the LIRR director of labor relations to deny Roache similar representation. Id. ¶ 84. Roache also accuses defendants of installing 10 cameras in his office, which they removed after he was demoted. Id. ¶¶ 68, 80. And, on October 23, 2017, Roache was instructed to make a "bump" to displace a less senior employee. Id. ¶¶ 77–78. Despite complying with that order, Roache was informed the next day that his bump was invalid, even though defendants permitted other employees to take similar action. Id. ¶ 78.

As for Roache's filed grievances, he claims that in September 2015, he reported "the harassment and hostility that he was subjected to," and he submitted phone recordings in support of his grievance. Id. ¶ 10. However, "instead of addressing the issues, [defendant and BRS Vice General Chairman] Sokolowski instructed [m]anagement to remove [Roache's] access to the phone recordings." Id. Roache filed another grievance on April 17, 2016, after receiving "negative emails" from an assistant foreman, but he never received a response from LIRR. Id. ¶¶ 19–20, 25–26. And, in May 2016, Roache brought a grievance to the LIRR Human Resources Department relating to a manager's "hostility" towards Roache, but Natale "instructed the BRS representative not to respond ... [and subsequently] referred to [Roache] as a ‘rat.’ " Id. ¶¶ 23–24. On another occasion in 2016, Sokolowski refused to file a grievance on Roache's behalf, which Roache had made in connection with a missed overtime opportunity. Id. ¶ 18. Then, in late 2017, Roache was instructed to file a grievance in connection with the invalidation of his "bump," but, instead of addressing the issue, Natale dissuaded Roache from pursuing the grievance. Id. ¶ 78. Finally, Roache filed a grievance in September 2018 for LIRR's failure to upgrade him. Id. ¶ 98.

Roache filed a claim with New York State Division of Human Rights ("NYSDHR") on December 12, 2017, charging LIRR with unlawful discriminatory employment practices, and he received a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on August 18, 2018. Id. at 3 ¶¶ 8–9. He initiated this action on November 13, 2018, see Dkt. 1, and he filed an amended complaint on November 19, 2018, contending LIRR violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000, by unlawfully discriminating against him on the basis of his race and national origin, and by retaliating against him for filing grievances in response to the alleged discrimination. Id. ¶¶ 103–12. Roache also claims that all defendants violated New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, and New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107, for the same reasons.² Id. ¶¶ 113–26.

The union defendants have moved to dismiss Roache's remaining state and municipal law claims against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See generally Union Defs.’ Mem., Dkt. 31-1; Union Defs.’ Reply, Dkt. 31-3. Separately, the LIRR defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint, in its entirety, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See generally LIRR Defs.’ Mem., Dkt. 33.

Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6). "A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court...