Ulrich v. Soft Drink & Brewery Workers and Delivery Employees

Background

John Ulrich and Lawrence DeBellis brought related actions against Soft Drink, Brewery Workers and Delivery Employees, Industrial Employees, Warehousemen, Helpers and Miscellaneous Workers, Greater New York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 812, also called Local 812, and several Union officials. They alleged retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law, as well as state-law defamation, in connection with the termination of their Union jobs.

Earlier in the litigation, the court dismissed Counts I and II with prejudice through signed stipulations, which also removed other originally named defendants. The motions addressed the remaining Counts VIII, IX, and X and the remaining defendants: Local 812, Edward Weber, John Visconti, Joseph Vitta, James Surdi, Mario Alvarez, and, in DeBellis’s case, Artie Bowman.

Legal standard

The defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint alleges enough plausible facts to state a legal claim. At this stage, the court accepted the complaints’ factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs, but it did not accept unsupported legal conclusions or decide witness credibility.

Defamation claims

Both plaintiffs withdrew their defamation claims. The court therefore dismissed Count X from both amended complaints with prejudice.

Title VII individual-liability claims

The court agreed with the defendants that individuals cannot be held personally liable under Title VII. To the extent the plaintiffs asserted Title VII retaliation claims against individual defendants, those claims were dismissed with prejudice. The court distinguished the New York State Human Rights Law’s aiding-and-abetting provision, which can impose liability on an individual who actually participates in conduct underlying a discrimination or retaliation claim.

Ulrich’s retaliation claims

The court held that Ulrich plausibly alleged retaliation under both Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. Ulrich alleged that he complained about alleged sexual harassment by Vitta, an allegedly improper collective bargaining agreement, and alleged improper use of the Local 812 Health Fund. He further alleged that, after a December 2, 2015 meeting with Weber concerning these matters, an investigation into him began in January 2016 and he was suspended in February 2016.

The court found that the timing—particularly the approximately two-month gap between the December meeting and the suspension—was enough at the pleading stage to support a possible causal connection. It also rejected the defendants’ argument that the investigation was an intervening event defeating causation, reasoning that Ulrich alleged the investigation itself was part of the retaliation and led to his suspension. The court further concluded that Ulrich’s informal complaints could qualify as protected activity and that he plausibly alleged the required good-faith basis for the complaints.

Ulrich also alleged that Weber and Vitta aided and abetted the retaliation under New York law. The court found that the complaint plausibly alleged their participation, including their alleged involvement in meetings, the handling of accusations against Ulrich, and the organization of the investigation. Count VIII and Count IX therefore survived as to Ulrich.

DeBellis’s retaliation claims

The court held that DeBellis failed to state a retaliation claim. His complaint referred primarily to Ulrich’s complaints and alleged that DeBellis was questioned as a witness, but it did not allege what DeBellis said or identify conduct showing that he opposed an unlawful employment practice. The court explained that participation in an employer’s investigation can be protected activity, but DeBellis did not provide allegations showing that his responses to questioning qualified.

DeBellis also appeared to allege retaliation based on his association with Ulrich. The court stated that the relevant appellate court had not resolved whether such third-party retaliation claims are legally recognized. It nevertheless concluded that DeBellis had not plausibly alleged either an association with a protected class or the nature of an association with Ulrich that could support such a claim. Because DeBellis failed to state an underlying retaliation claim, his aiding-and-abetting claims against Weber and Vitta also failed.

Because DeBellis was represented by counsel, had already amended his complaint, and had not sought to amend these counts again, the court dismissed Counts VIII and IX with prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas partly denied the defendants’ motion as to Ulrich and granted the defendants’ motion as to DeBellis. Ulrich’s Counts VIII and IX remained in the case. The Clerk was directed to reopen Ulrich’s case, terminate Visconti and Alvarez from that case, and note that the motion to dismiss was terminated. DeBellis’s case was closed because the granted motion resolved it entirely. The court also dismissed Count X with prejudice in both cases and dismissed any Title VII claims against individual defendants with prejudice.

The opinion’s supplied filing date is December 3, 2019; the text’s signature block states only “December |, 2019,” so the exact signed date is unclear.