Chaney v. Local 32BJ SEIU

Background

Jon Eric Chaney worked as a doorman and concierge at Lumiere Condominium from 2012 until September 1, 2021. He was a member of Local 32BJ SEIU, and a collective bargaining agreement between Lumiere and the Union governed his representation.

Chaney alleged that he experienced discrimination and unequal treatment at work. He also alleged that he suffered a head injury while attempting to stop intruders from entering Lumiere’s lobby. After an argument with another doorman, Chaney was suspended without pay and later signed a “Last Chance Agreement” during a meeting with Gene Szymanski, a Union field representative. Chaney alleged that Szymanski pressured him to sign the agreement and told him that he could be transferred to another building if his employment at Lumiere ended.

Lumiere terminated Chaney’s employment on September 1, 2021, after he arrived late to work and failed to call. Chaney filed a grievance with the Union. The Union later concluded that the grievance lacked sufficient merit to prevail in arbitration, and its grievance and appeal board denied Chaney’s appeal on April 6, 2022. Chaney later asked Szymanski about a transfer, and Szymanski responded that the Union did not place employees in other buildings because it did not control employers’ hiring decisions.

Claims and Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

Chaney’s First Amended Complaint asserted four causes of action. The first alleged that the Union violated Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act by breaching its duty of fair representation. The other causes of action alleged disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law against the Union and Szymanski.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to make a legally valid claim plausible. In deciding that motion, the court treated well-pleaded factual allegations as true but did not accept legal conclusions as facts.

Federal Labor Claim

A hybrid Section 301 and duty-of-fair-representation claim requires a plaintiff to allege both that the employer breached a collective bargaining agreement and that the union breached its duty of fair representation. A union breaches that duty when its conduct toward a represented employee is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The court held that Chaney’s claim was barred by the six-month statute of limitations. Chaney clarified that the claim rested solely on Szymanski’s alleged misleading statement about a possible transfer on March 19, 2021. The court concluded that the Union’s representation had ended no later than April 6, 2022, when the Union adopted the grievance board’s recommendation and denied Chaney’s appeal. The court also concluded that events before November 9, 2022—including the Union’s handling of the grievance, its failure to provide an attorney for the appeal, and the lack of action on a transfer—should have put Chaney on notice of the alleged breach. Because Chaney filed his initial complaint on January 17, 2023, the claim was untimely.

The court added that, even if the claim had been timely, Chaney did not allege facts showing that the Union’s conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the hybrid Section 301 and duty-of-fair-representation claim.

New York City Human Rights Law Claims

After dismissing the only federal claim, the court had discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining city-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state or local claims alongside federal claims. Judge Broderick declined to exercise that jurisdiction, explaining that deciding the New York City Human Rights Law claims in state court would avoid unnecessary decisions about city law and promote fairness and respect between court systems. The court dismissed those claims.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Clerk was directed to terminate Document 32 and close the case.