Stafa v. Innovative Facility Services
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-10509
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Stafa v. Innovative Facility Services, Judge Rochon granted the union’s dismissal motion and ordered Stafa’s claims against IFS to arbitration and a stay.
Lule Stafa’s claims against the Union were dismissed, and her claims against Innovative Facility Services were stayed pending arbitration; the court did not decide IFS’s separate dismissal arguments.
What happened
In Stafa v. Innovative Facility Services, Lule Stafa, representing herself, sued her former employer, Innovative Facility Services, and her union. She alleged age, race, and national-origin discrimination, retaliation, and improper handling of her termination and grievance. The union had represented her in arbitration after her termination, but the arbitrator ruled for the employer.
The court granted the union’s motion to dismiss. It ruled that Stafa had not alleged facts showing that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, or that the union seriously undermined the arbitration process. Disagreement with the arbitration result, or possible tactical errors such as not calling witnesses, was not enough to state a claim against the union.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon also granted Innovative Facility Services’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed Stafa’s claims against that company pending arbitration. The court concluded that the collective bargaining agreement required covered age, race, and national-origin discrimination claims to be arbitrated. It did not reach the employer’s separate motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Stafa v. Innovative Facility Services · No. 1:23-cv-10509
- Rochon
- Jan. 3, 2025
Background
Lule Stafa, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Innovative Facility Services, Inc. (IFS) and Service Employees International Union, Local 32B-J. She alleged that IFS retaliated against her and terminated her because of her age, and the court construed her complaint as also alleging race and national-origin discrimination under Title VII. The court also construed the complaint as asserting a combined claim against IFS and the Union involving an alleged breach of the collective bargaining agreement and the Union’s alleged breach of its duty to fairly represent her.
Stafa alleged that after IFS replaced her prior employer in October 2017, a forelady gave her additional work, bullied her based on her age and inability to speak English, and that IFS treated Albanian and African workers unfavorably while hiring mostly Dominican workers. She also alleged that IFS changed her schedule and removed her Sunday shift. On November 13, 2020, IFS terminated her for allegedly clocking in late after lunch and talking with coworkers instead of returning to work.
Stafa filed a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement. The Union took her to arbitration against IFS over whether there was just cause for her suspension and termination. The arbitrator issued a final award for IFS on August 11, 2023, denying Stafa’s grievance in full. Stafa then sought notices of the right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and filed this case on November 28, 2023.
The Union’s Motion to Dismiss
The Union moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court dismissed Stafa’s hybrid-duty claim against the Union.
A hybrid-duty claim requires a plaintiff to show both that the employer breached the collective bargaining agreement and that the union breached its duty of fair representation. To plead a fair-representation breach, Stafa had to allege that the Union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, and that its conduct caused her injury. In the arbitration setting, the alleged conduct must have seriously undermined the arbitration process.
The court found that Stafa’s complaint did not identify specific promises the Union made and broke before her termination. The court understood her claim to rest mainly on the Union’s handling of the arbitration, but Stafa did not identify specific acts or omissions by the Union that seriously undermined those proceedings. Her disagreement with the arbitrator’s decision was not enough. The court also stated that not calling witnesses, even if erroneous, would generally amount only to a judgment or tactical error and would not establish a breach of the duty of fair representation on the allegations presented.
IFS’s Motion to Compel Arbitration
IFS moved to dismiss on statute-of-limitations, pleading, and subject-matter-jurisdiction grounds. In the alternative, it moved under the Federal Arbitration Act to compel arbitration and stay the case. The court addressed arbitration first and did not reach the merits of IFS’s motion to dismiss.
The court examined the collective bargaining agreement’s provision stating that discrimination claims based on race, age, or national origin under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, or similar laws were subject to the grievance and arbitration procedure as the sole and exclusive remedy. The court found that this language showed the parties agreed to arbitrate and that it covered Stafa’s statutory discrimination claims. It also concluded that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII claims were legally capable of being arbitrated.
The court therefore granted IFS’s motion to compel arbitration. Because all of Stafa’s claims against IFS fell within the arbitration provision, the court also granted IFS’s request to stay those claims pending arbitration. The court did not decide IFS’s separate arguments for dismissal.
Disposition
The Union’s motion to dismiss was granted. IFS’s motion to compel arbitration was granted. Stafa’s claims against IFS were stayed pending arbitration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motions at Docket 14 and Docket 29.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.