Fleischer v. Barnard College

Background

Georgette Fleischer, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Barnard College and Local 2110 of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers. She alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, and the Federal Arbitration Act. Her main objective was to vacate, or set aside, an arbitration opinion upholding Barnard’s decision not to reappoint her as an adjunct professor for the 2017–2018 academic year.

Fleischer had taught at Barnard since 2000, primarily in the First Year Seminar Program, where reappointment occurred annually. She became involved in organizing Barnard’s contingent faculty and was elected to the bargaining committee. She alleged that Local 2110 marginalized her during negotiations and negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with inadequate job security and academic-freedom protections.

The collective bargaining agreement stated that an appointment did not create a right or expectation of future appointment. It also provided certain long-serving contingent faculty members with separation pay and good-faith consideration for reappointment. Barnard informed Fleischer in May 2017 that it would not reappoint her, citing a reduction in part-time faculty and concerns about student evaluations of her grading standards and feedback. An arbitration proceeding followed. On August 19, 2019, the arbitrator ruled against Fleischer, finding by clear and convincing evidence that Barnard had not reappointed her because of unsatisfactory performance.

Claims and Review Standard

The court construed Fleischer’s petition to vacate the arbitration decision as a “hybrid” claim. In this type of claim, an employee must show both that the employer breached the collective bargaining agreement and that the union breached its duty of fair representation. A union breaches that duty only when its conduct toward a member is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. The court applied the rule that a complaint must allege enough facts to make a claim legally plausible, while giving special consideration to Fleischer’s status as a self-represented plaintiff.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Federal Arbitration Act and Hybrid Claim

The court held that Fleischer lacked standing to bring claims directly challenging the arbitration proceeding under the Federal Arbitration Act because Local 2110 and Barnard, not Fleischer, were the parties to the arbitration. She therefore could not use those claims to relitigate whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority, used the wrong standard of proof, or improperly evaluated witness credibility.

The court held that Fleischer could pursue a hybrid claim against the union and Barnard, but concluded that she did not plausibly allege a breach of the union’s duty of fair representation. Claims based on the union’s conduct during collective bargaining in 2017 were time-barred because hybrid claims are subject to a six-month limitations period. The court considered only allegations concerning the arbitration, which ended in August 2019.

The court rejected each theory concerning the union’s handling of the arbitration:

- Delay: The complaint did not plausibly allege that the nearly year-long delay caused a legally recognized injury or affected the arbitration’s outcome. The court dismissed this part of the claim without deciding whether the union acted improperly in delaying the arbitration. - Failure to pursue a collective action: Fleischer did not allege that other similarly situated union members wanted to participate or that the union had a legal duty to pursue a collective grievance. The union’s decision to pursue individual rather than collective action therefore fell within the broad range of reasonable union choices. - Failure to object to the arbitrator: The allegations that the arbitrator had previously presided over matters involving the law firm representing Barnard did not establish a legally actionable conflict of interest or require the union to seek his replacement. The union followed the arbitrator-selection procedure in the collective bargaining agreement, and its decision not to challenge the arbitrator was not legally arbitrary. - Failure to challenge the arbitration award: The union gave rational reasons for declining to seek vacatur, including the low likelihood of success, the cost, and possible negative effects on the union. The court held that Fleischer had not plausibly alleged arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad-faith conduct.

Because Fleischer did not adequately plead a breach of the duty of fair representation, the court dismissed her hybrid claims against Local 2110 and Barnard.

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act Claims

The court also dismissed Fleischer’s claims under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The statute protects certain union-member rights, including the right to express views about union policies and affairs. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over claims concerning alleged manipulation of the union’s electoral process and alleged misuse of union funds because Fleischer had not alleged compliance with the statute’s required procedures for those claims.

The court found that the remaining allegations also did not state a claim. Fleischer alleged that Local 2110 failed to inform members about the statute and removed her from the union’s email list. The complaint did not allege that the union failed to inform Fleischer of her rights, and she had attached the union’s bylaws to her complaint. The complaint also did not specify when she was removed from the email list or allege that the removal prevented her from attending meetings or participating in union activities. The court therefore dismissed the LMRDA claims.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams held that amendment would be futile because the alleged conduct did not violate the union’s duty of fair representation or the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The court granted Barnard’s and Local 2110’s motions to dismiss with prejudice, dismissed all of Fleischer’s claims with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate the listed motions, and closed the case.