Sullivan v. Gelb

Background

Mark Sullivan, a former chorus member at the Metropolitan Opera, sued Peter Gelb, Marcia Sells, Stephanie Basta, and Samuel Wheeler. He challenged COVID policies that required, among other things, Metropolitan Opera employees to become vaccinated against COVID-19 or face disciplinary action. His amended complaint asserted claims including tortious interference with contractual relations, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, assault, concerted-action liability, violations of New York state and municipal laws, and breach of the duty of fair representation.

In an earlier opinion, the court dismissed the claims with prejudice. It concluded that many of Sullivan’s state-law claims were preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because resolving them required interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. The court also concluded that Sullivan’s claims under section 301 and for breach of the duty of fair representation were untimely under the applicable six-month deadline. It found that those claims accrued no later than October 5, 2022, while Sullivan filed his claims in New York state court on May 7, 2023. The court separately concluded that Sullivan had not adequately pleaded assault under New York law.

Motion for Reconsideration

Sullivan moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter the judgment, vacate the dismissal, and send the case back to New York State Supreme Court. He argued that the COVID policies could not legally govern matters outside the workplace or permanently affect his body without express consent. He also argued that the court had overlooked authorities concerning collective bargaining agreements, employer overreach, exemptions and accommodations, and Samuel Wheeler’s alleged actions beyond his authority. Sullivan’s reply cited a Ninth Circuit decision concerning a COVID vaccination policy issued by a state actor.

The defendants opposed reconsideration, arguing that Sullivan identified no controlling law or factual matter that the court had overlooked, and that his motion merely repeated arguments already rejected.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy. A moving party must identify controlling decisions or facts that the court overlooked and that could reasonably be expected to change the result. Reconsideration is not available merely to relitigate an issue the court already decided. The court also noted that Sullivan was proceeding without a lawyer, so it read his filings liberally, but that status did not excuse compliance with procedural and substantive legal rules.

The court rejected Sullivan’s argument that the earlier opinion assumed the COVID policies were legally part of the collective bargaining agreement. The court stated that it had not decided the policies’ validity or the defendants’ authority to adopt them. Instead, it held that determining what the agreement permitted, including what duties the defendants owed Sullivan, required interpreting the agreement. That interpretation triggered preemption under section 301 for the claims that were tied to the labor agreement.

The court also rejected Sullivan’s arguments about “bodily property,” express consent, employer overreach, and the difference between an exemption and an accommodation. It said those arguments still required interpreting the collective bargaining agreement and therefore did not change the preemption analysis. The court reiterated that Sullivan’s negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims failed because he did not adequately allege duties owed beyond those established by the agreement.

As to the assault claim, the court explained that its earlier ruling concerned the alleged conduct—not an attempt by the Metropolitan Opera to inject Sullivan. The amended complaint did not adequately allege a threatening act intended to place him in fear of immediate harmful or offensive contact.

The court further held that Sullivan’s arguments concerning Wheeler did not change the dismissal of the duty-of-fair-representation claims. A duty-of-fair-representation claim could not properly be asserted against Wheeler personally for acts performed on the union’s behalf in collective bargaining. The court also had previously determined that such claims would be untimely even if brought against the union itself.

Finally, the court declined to reconsider its earlier denial of Sullivan’s request to send the case to state court. It found that request untimely under the local reconsideration rule and again noted that the complaint included a federal duty-of-fair-representation claim that supported federal-question jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court held that Sullivan had not identified controlling decisions, new evidence, or overlooked facts that could reasonably change the earlier result. It therefore denied Sullivan’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 110. The court did not decide the validity of the Metropolitan Opera’s COVID policies or whether the defendants had authority to adopt or enforce them.