Tavarez v. 32BJ

Background

Orfelina Tavarez appeared without a lawyer and sued Triangle Services, identified as her former employer, and 32BJ SEIU, her union. She attached an August 28, 2018 arbitration decision concluding that Triangle Services had just cause to terminate her. According to that decision, the arbitrator found that Tavarez threatened a coworker with serious bodily injury using a knife. Tavarez alleged that she lost her job of 23 years for no reason, suffered physical, emotional, and mental damages, and sought unspecified monetary damages.

The court had previously allowed Tavarez to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because she was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, or sought relief from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a self-represented complaint must still provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Labor Claim

The court construed Tavarez’s allegations as potentially asserting a hybrid Section 301/duty-of-fair-representation claim. This type of claim requires facts showing both that the employer breached the collective bargaining agreement and that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in representing the employee.

The court found Tavarez’s allegations insufficient. She did not allege facts suggesting that 32BJ acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, and she did not allege facts showing that Triangle Services breached the collective bargaining agreement. The court therefore granted her leave to amend to provide any available facts supporting this claim.

Employment-Discrimination Claim

The court noted that Tavarez had filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, so she might have intended to assert employment discrimination. The arbitration decision stated that she testified that her supervisor engaged in grossly offensive behavior from approximately 2011 to May 2015, but the court found that Tavarez’s complaint did not identify a protected characteristic or facts connecting her termination or other mistreatment to such a characteristic. It also found no facts suggesting retaliation for opposing unlawful discrimination.

The court further stated that any federal discrimination claim appeared likely to be untimely. It explained that a federal employment-discrimination suit generally must be filed within 90 days after receiving a notice of the right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court inferred from the available documents that Tavarez received a state agency decision before the August 28, 2018 arbitration award and likely received the federal notice around that time. However, the court recognized that the filing deadline can be extended in rare circumstances and did not dismiss the claim at this stage.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court held that Tavarez had failed to state a hybrid labor claim or an employment-discrimination claim, but granted her leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to state the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant, identify the defendants and their addresses, describe the events and dates, explain how each defendant violated her federally protected rights, describe her injuries, and state the relief sought. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

The court directed Tavarez to submit the amended complaint to the Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 18-CV-8517 (CM). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if she failed to comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.