Phillips v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 2013

Background

Clio Phillips, representing herself, sued United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 2013, Leonard Russ, Linda Myers Russ, and Bayberry Rehabilitation and Care Center. She alleged discrimination and retaliation based on race, color, and nationality under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. She also asserted claims under the National Labor Relations Act, including that the Union breached its duty to represent her fairly.

Phillips worked for Bayberry from 2019 to 2021 as a certified nursing assistant and was a Union member. After she opposed a proposed Union contract and filed a petition seeking to decertify the Union, she alleged that Bayberry supervisors used racial slurs, increased her workload, threatened her, and ultimately fired her. She alleged that a Union representative discussed challenging her termination but that the Union ultimately declined to file a grievance. Phillips filed labor-related charges with the National Labor Relations Board, which dismissed the charges.

Court’s analysis

The Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, and Rule 12(b)(1), which addresses the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Because Phillips was representing herself, the court read her filings liberally, while noting that her handwritten submissions were often difficult to decipher.

Title VII. The court dismissed Phillips’s Title VII claims against the individual Russ Defendants with prejudice because individuals cannot be held liable under Title VII. The court dismissed her Title VII claims against the remaining Defendants because Phillips acknowledged that she never filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court found that she did not allege facts supporting a deadline extension based on exceptional circumstances.

Section 1981 and New York State Human Rights Law discrimination. The court dismissed the Section 1981 and New York State Human Rights Law discrimination claims against the Russ Defendants and the Union because Phillips did not allege that those Defendants were personally involved in discriminatory conduct. The court reached a different conclusion as to Bayberry. It found that Phillips plausibly alleged that she belonged to a protected racial group, suffered an adverse employment action when Bayberry terminated her, and was fired under circumstances supporting an inference that race was a cause of the termination. The alleged racial statements by Bayberry supervisors, including the supervisor who allegedly made or recommended the termination, were sufficient at the pleading stage. The court therefore denied Bayberry’s motion as to Phillips’s Section 1981 discrimination claim. The related New York State Human Rights Law discrimination claim against Bayberry also survived.

Retaliation. The court dismissed Phillips’s Section 1981 and New York State Human Rights Law retaliation claims. It explained that Phillips alleged retaliation for filing a Union decertification petition, not retaliation for complaining about racial discrimination. That activity therefore did not satisfy the required protected-activity element of these retaliation claims.

Duty of fair representation. A union’s duty of fair representation requires it to avoid acting arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith toward a member. The court held that Phillips’s claim was untimely because such claims have a six-month limitations period, and she filed this action more than six months after the Union allegedly refused to process her grievance concerning her November 11, 2021 termination.

National Labor Relations Act claims. The court held that claims alleging unfair labor practices under Sections 7 and 8 of the National Labor Relations Act fall within the National Labor Relations Board’s exclusive jurisdiction. The federal district court therefore dismissed those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Ruling

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted Defendants’ Motions in part and denied them in part. The motions were denied as to Phillips’s discrimination claims under Section 1981 and the New York State Human Rights Law against Bayberry, allowing those claims to proceed. The motions were granted as to all other claims. The court stated that the Title VII claims, the Sections 7 and 8 claims, and the other dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice. Phillips may file a second amended complaint within 30 days that includes all claims, defendants, and facts she wants the court to consider. If she does not timely amend, the dismissed claims may be dismissed with prejudice.