Gonzalez v. City of New York

Background

Alfred Gonzalez was a permanent New York City civil-service employee and a member of District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Social Service Employees Union Local 371. The City fired him in March 2015 for alleged prolonged and unexcused absences. The collective bargaining agreement between the Union and the City provided a grievance process for challenging disciplinary action. It also required employees using that process to waive their rights to pursue the claims in other judicial or administrative proceedings, including a proceeding under New York Civil Service Law § 75. Employees could seek judicial review of adverse disciplinary decisions under Article 78 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules.

Gonzalez alleged that the Union and the City conspired to terminate him without due process and deprived him of the process promised by the collective bargaining agreement. He also alleged that Union officials repeatedly assured him that they would appeal his termination, later decided not to appeal it, had him sign blank grievance forms, and submitted fraudulent documents in a proceeding before the Board of Collective Bargaining. The opinion states that Gonzalez proceeded without a lawyer in opposing the Union’s motion.

Gonzalez’s amended complaint asserted due process claims against the City and the Union. The court also construed the complaint as asserting a claim against the Union for breach of the duty of fair representation under section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act. In an earlier opinion, the court dismissed Gonzalez’s first two claims against the City because he had not pursued an Article 78 proceeding, which the court found would have provided an adequate remedy after the alleged deprivation. The court dismissed his third claim because it did not allege an actual injury, but allowed him to amend that claim.

Union’s Motion for Summary Judgment

The Union moved for summary judgment, which is a request for judgment without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The Union argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the fair-representation claim because the Labor Management Relations Act does not cover public employees. It also argued that the Union was not a state actor and therefore could not be liable for violating due process.

Duty of Fair Representation

The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Gonzalez’s fair-representation claim. It reasoned that Gonzalez was a public employee and that the Labor Management Relations Act does not confer federal jurisdiction over fair-representation claims brought by public employees. The court therefore granted the Union’s motion for summary judgment on that claim.

Due Process and Conspiracy Claims

The court explained that a constitutional due process claim generally requires conduct by a state actor. A labor union generally is not a state actor. The court nevertheless construed Gonzalez’s complaint as asserting a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which can apply when a private entity allegedly conspires with a state actor to cause a constitutional injury.

The court ruled that such a conspiracy claim requires an underlying constitutional violation. Because the court had previously determined that Gonzalez did not have a viable due process claim against the City, it concluded that he could not establish the underlying violation needed to maintain a § 1983 conspiracy claim against the Union. The court therefore granted the Union summary judgment on the conspiracy claim.

The court did not consider Gonzalez’s argument that the person who allegedly removed him lacked statutory authority because that claim was not included in his complaint.

State-Law Claims and Final Disposition

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims, because it had dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction. The court concluded that the relevant considerations—including judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts—supported declining jurisdiction over any state-law claims the complaint might be read to assert.

The court stated that its earlier opinion had dismissed Gonzalez’s first two claims against the City with prejudice and had allowed him to amend his third claim. Because Gonzalez had not filed an amended complaint more than a year later, the court concluded that he did not intend to amend and converted the dismissal of the third claim into a dismissal with prejudice. The court granted the Union’s motion for summary judgment on all claims against the Union, found that no claims remained, directed that the case be closed, and ordered that a copy of the decision be mailed to Gonzalez.