Krupka v. TF Cornerstone, Inc.

Background

Walter Krupka filed claims alleging that Defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1981, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, to compel arbitration. Defendants argued that the claims were covered by the collective bargaining agreement governing Krupka’s employment.

Krupka argued, among other things, that he could bring the statutory discrimination claims in federal court because SEIU Local 32BJ, the union representing him, chose not to assist him through the grievance and arbitration procedures under the collective bargaining agreement.

Collective Bargaining Agreement

The agreement’s No Discrimination clause covers claims under the federal, New York State, and New York City discrimination laws listed in the complaint. It states that those claims are subject to the agreement’s grievance and arbitration procedure as the sole and exclusive remedy.

The agreement’s grievance and arbitration provisions generally require the applicable processes and presume that the union will pursue the employee’s claim. The agreement also contains a No-Discrimination Protocol for situations in which the union declines to arbitrate an employee’s individual discrimination claim. That protocol requires written “Bypass Notice” to the Realty Advisory Board of Labor Relations and the employer before the employee files the claim in court or another forum. The agreement states that providing this notice is a condition precedent to bringing the claim.

A related side letter identifies a dispute between the union and the Realty Advisory Board about whether employees may sue in court when the union declines to arbitrate statutory discrimination claims. The side letter states that this dispute is to be resolved only through arbitration between those parties, not through a judicial or administrative proceeding. The court cited federal authority permitting courts to enforce collective bargaining agreements under the Labor Management Relations Act and explained that such agreements are interpreted under ordinary contract principles.

Order

The court did not decide the ultimate merits of Krupka’s discrimination claims or finally resolve whether the claims must be arbitrated. Instead, the court ordered the parties to show cause why the case should not be stayed and Krupka should not be directed to comply with the collective bargaining agreement’s requirements for bringing a claim in court. The parties were directed to submit letters by June 2, 2020, and a show-cause hearing was set for June 4, 2020, subject to cancellation if unnecessary.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to compel arbitration without prejudice to renewal. The Clerk of Court was directed to close docket entry 22.