Peralta v. 32BJ SEIU

Background

Victor Peralta, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued 32BJ SEIU, his union, over events arising from the termination of his employment in 2013. He alleged that, after he was accused of sexual harassment, the union failed to investigate the accusations and refused to take his case to arbitration. He also alleged that the union refused to remove the accusations from his union record. He claimed that this prevented him from obtaining permanent employment and constituted discrimination.

Peralta had previously challenged his firing through a workplace-grievance proceeding, a proceeding before the New York State Division of Human Rights, a New York state-court proceeding, and an earlier federal action. The state court upheld the administrative finding of no probable cause of discrimination and found that the agency had a rational basis for concluding that Peralta was terminated because of substantiated sexual-harassment allegations. The earlier federal action was dismissed because claim and issue preclusion barred relitigation of the same claims and issues.

Claims and analysis

The court construed the complaint as asserting three categories of claims: (1) claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of federal constitutional rights; (2) combined labor-law claims under the Labor Management Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Act alleging that 32BJ breached its duty of fair representation; and (3) claims under Title VII alleging discrimination by the union.

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims because such a claim requires conduct by a person acting under state law. The court stated that 32BJ is a private entity and that Peralta alleged no facts showing that it acted under state law. The court therefore dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim under the federal statute governing screening of fee-free complaints.

The court also applied issue preclusion, a rule that prevents a party from relitigating an issue that was actually decided in an earlier proceeding after a full and fair opportunity to litigate it. The court determined that the issues Peralta sought to raise—including whether the sexual-harassment accusations were false, whether they justified his discharge, and whether his discharge resulted from a conspiracy—had already been litigated in the state administrative and court proceedings. The court held that Peralta could not relitigate those issues by asserting claims against a different defendant, the union. It dismissed claims asserting that he did not commit sexual harassment or that his former employer discriminated against him by firing him.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It denied leave to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.