Sussman v. Newspaper and Mail Deliverer's Union of New York and Vicinity
- P. Castel
- 1:16-cv-07659
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Sussman v. Newspaper and Mail Deliverer's Union, Judge Castel denied reconsideration, preserving plaintiffs’ fair-representation claim over a discriminatory seniority system.
The ruling directly affected NDMU and the plaintiffs, Mark Sussman, Stefani Lombardi, and Terance Bright. It left in place the court’s earlier decision denying summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claim that NDMU breached its duty of fair representation during contract negotiations.
What happened
Sussman v. Newspaper and Mail Deliverer's Union concerns part-time delivery-truck drivers whose employment was covered by a union-negotiated agreement. The plaintiffs said the union unfairly negotiated an extension that preserved a discriminatory seniority system, making them ineligible for a buyout offered by their employer.
The union asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision denying summary judgment. It argued that the plaintiffs’ claim was a combined claim requiring proof that the employer had first violated the collective bargaining agreement. The court rejected that characterization, explaining that the plaintiffs’ claim focused on the union’s alleged failure to represent them fairly during contract negotiations.
Judge P. Kevin Castel denied the union’s motion to reconsider. He also concluded that the motion was untimely and that, even on the merits, the plaintiffs did not need to prove an employer breach as a condition of the union’s potential liability on this claim.
The detailed version
- Sussman v. Newspaper and Mail Deliverer's Union of New York and Vicinity · No. 1:16-cv-07659
- P. Castel
- July 27, 2020
Background
Mark Sussman, Stefani Lombardi, and Terance Bright are part-time employees of NYP Holdings, Inc., the owner of the New York Post, and drive delivery trucks. They are not members of the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NDMU) and are prohibited from becoming members. Their employment terms are governed by a collective bargaining agreement negotiated on their behalf by NDMU.
NYP offered a financially advantageous buyout agreement. The plaintiffs were ineligible for the buyout because of an extension agreement and the pre-existing seniority system. They alleged that NDMU breached its duty of fair representation by acting arbitrarily and in bad faith when it negotiated an extension agreement that continued a seniority system that discriminated against them.
In an earlier summary-judgment decision, the court concluded that a reasonable fact finder could determine that NDMU acted arbitrarily and in bad faith because it knew the extension agreement would continue the allegedly discriminatory seniority system. NDMU then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) for reconsideration of that decision.
Motion for Reconsideration
The court first held that the motion was untimely. Local Civil Rule 6.3 required a motion for reconsideration to be served within 14 days after the original decision. The summary-judgment decision was filed on February 10, 2020, but NDMU filed its reconsideration motion on March 31, 2020. The court found no basis for treating the motion as timely because it was based on a new legal argument, not newly discovered evidence.
The court nevertheless considered the motion’s merits. Reconsideration is available only in limited circumstances, such as an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a serious injustice. It is not an opportunity to present arguments that could have been raised earlier.
Nature of the Fair-Representation Claim
NDMU argued that the plaintiffs’ claim was a “hybrid” claim under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and the duty of fair representation. A hybrid claim generally combines an allegation that an employer breached a collective bargaining agreement with an allegation that the union mishandled the resulting grievance or arbitration.
The court held that the plaintiffs’ remaining fair-representation claim was not a hybrid claim. The plaintiffs alleged that NDMU failed to represent them fairly when negotiating and executing the extension agreement, including by failing to correct prior inequities in the seniority system. Their claim concerned the union’s conduct in contract negotiations, rather than the union’s handling of a grievance or arbitration based on an employer’s breach.
The court therefore rejected NDMU’s argument that the plaintiffs first had to prove that NYP breached the collective bargaining agreement. The court noted that the plaintiffs’ earlier claims against NYP and certain statutory claims against NYP and NDMU had been dismissed, but those earlier rulings were not changed by this decision.
Disposition
The court denied NDMU’s motion for reconsideration and adhered in its entirety to its February 10, 2020 Memorandum and Order denying NDMU’s motion for summary judgment.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.