Cruz v. 32BJ SEIU

Background

Carina Cruz, representing herself, alleged that ABM Industry Groups, LLC, her employer, and SEIU Local 32BJ, her union, discriminated against her based on gender, race, and national origin. She brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the National Labor Relations Act. She also claimed that the Union violated its duty to fairly represent her.

Cruz alleged that she complained about her workload beginning in 2015 and that ABM responded with more difficult assignments, a suspension, and warnings for various alleged infractions. She also described conduct by Union members, including a letter seeking her termination and a text message referring to her as a “stupid Dominican.” The central surviving allegations concerned two workload grievances Cruz submitted in January 2019. The Union arbitrated a White coworker’s grievance even though Cruz alleged that the coworker had a workload identical in size to hers, but the Union did not arbitrate Cruz’s grievances.

Rulings on the Motions to Dismiss

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether the complaint alleges enough facts to make a legal claim plausible. At this stage, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and reads a self-represented litigant’s filings liberally.

Claims against ABM. ABM’s motion to dismiss was granted in full, and ABM was dismissed from the case. The court dismissed Cruz’s Title VII claims because she did not file an employment-discrimination charge against ABM with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or receive a notice allowing her to sue ABM. The court also dismissed her New York State and New York City discrimination claims because her allegations were general and did not identify specific female workers, male comparators, or specific instances showing discriminatory treatment. Her retaliation claims under those laws were dismissed because she did not allege specific complaints about discrimination, facts showing that ABM knew about such complaints, or facts connecting those complaints to the suspension and warnings she described.

The court allowed Cruz to ask for permission to amend the New York State and New York City discrimination and retaliation claims against ABM by supplying more specific facts. The court did not allow amendment of the Title VII claims against ABM because it found amendment would be futile.

Claims against the Union. The Union’s motion to dismiss was granted in part. The court dismissed the Title VII claims concerning conduct other than the 2019 workload grievance because Cruz’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge addressed only the Union’s decision to arbitrate the coworker’s grievance but not Cruz’s. The court also concluded that the earlier alleged conduct was outside the required filing period. The federal Title VII claim concerning the 2019 workload grievance remained because it was not at issue in the Union’s motion.

The court rejected the Union’s argument that the New York State and New York City claims concerning the 2019 workload grievance were displaced by federal labor law. It reasoned that resolving those discrimination claims would depend on the Union’s actions, statements, and motivations, not on interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. The court denied dismissal of those claims because Cruz plausibly alleged that the Union treated her differently from a White coworker with an identically sized workload.

The court dismissed Cruz’s claim that the Union breached its duty of fair representation under the National Labor Relations Act as untimely. The court applied a six-month filing period and found that Cruz filed this case more than six months after the alleged March 14, 2019 violation.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court allowed Cruz to seek permission to add claims concerning two other workload grievances, subject to providing copies and specific explanations. It did not allow her to amend the dismissed earlier discrimination claims against the Union or the fair-representation claim. The court’s conclusion stated that ABM’s motion to dismiss was granted in full and the Union’s motion to dismiss was granted in part. The surviving claims were Cruz’s Title VII, New York State, and New York City discrimination claims against the Union based on the alleged unequal handling of the 2019 workload grievance.