Stinson v. Tucker

Background

Marcus Stinson, who appeared without a lawyer, sued CUNY, Sonia S. Pearson, and Esther Sandy Tucker. The opinion identifies Pearson as the Director of CUNY’s Human Resources Department and Tucker as Stinson’s union president and a CUNY employee. Stinson sued the individual defendants in both their individual and official capacities.

Stinson alleged discrimination and retaliation under Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He sought damages and court-ordered relief. His allegations concerned events leading to his discharge from CUNY in 2017 and events afterward, including post-termination arbitration and unemployment-insurance proceedings and CUNY’s alleged restrictions on his access to his workplace and classes.

The opinion describes several earlier lawsuits arising from Stinson’s CUNY employment. In the first, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, relying in part on state immunity from suit and in part on failure to state a claim. In later related proceedings, courts applied claim preclusion, which generally prevents a party from bringing claims that were already decided or could have been brought in an earlier case, and issue preclusion, which generally prevents relitigation of an issue already decided against that party. One later action remains pending in the Eastern District of New York and concerns some events after Stinson’s firing.

Court’s Analysis

Claims concerning events through the firing. The court held that claims against CUNY, Pearson, and Tucker arising from Stinson’s employment and termination were claims he had previously raised or could have raised in the first related action. It dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim under claim preclusion.

The court also held that claims against CUNY and CUNY employees in their official capacities under the New York City Human Rights Law were barred by issue preclusion and Eleventh Amendment immunity. Eleventh Amendment immunity is a constitutional protection that generally prevents suits against states and their state instrumentalities or agents in federal court, subject to recognized exceptions. The court stated that Stinson could not relitigate the prior determination that CUNY and a CUNY employee in her official capacity were immune from those claims.

Duplicative claims against CUNY. The court found that Stinson asserted claims against CUNY based on post-termination events that he had also asserted in the still-pending Eastern District of New York action. Because two cases concerning the same subject could not proceed at the same time, the court dismissed those claims as duplicative and stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to Stinson’s claims in the other action.

Federal labor-law claims against Tucker. The court interpreted Stinson’s allegations against Tucker, the union president, as claims that the union breached its duty to represent him fairly. The court treated the union, rather than Tucker personally, as the proper defendant for such a claim. It then dismissed the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the applicable federal labor law does not cover public employees. The court additionally stated that, even if that jurisdictional problem did not apply, Tucker could not be held individually liable for such a claim.

Remaining state-law claims. After dismissing all federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims it had not otherwise addressed. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. The court also stated that the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction because it did not provide the citizenship information needed to show that the parties were citizens of different states or facts showing the required amount in controversy.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for the reasons stated in the order. The opinion’s specific rulings included dismissal of precluded claims for failure to state a claim, dismissal of official-capacity New York City Human Rights Law claims under issue preclusion and Eleventh Amendment immunity, dismissal of duplicative claims against CUNY without prejudice to the related pending action, dismissal of federal labor-law claims against Tucker for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.