Cesiro v. Rite Aid of New York

Background

Lynda Cesiro worked as a licensed pharmacist for Rite Aid for more than twelve years and was a member of 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. After an ankle injury, she returned to work on light duty and alleged that Rite Aid denied requested accommodations, including a stool, intermittent sitting, and help from an assistant. Rite Aid terminated her in May 2019 without explaining the basis for the termination.

Cesiro pursued a union grievance. She alleged that Rite Aid did not provide the reason for her termination during the grievance process and that SEIU failed to challenge Rite Aid’s conduct. SEIU represented her through parts of the grievance process but decided not to take the grievance to arbitration. Cesiro appealed that decision through an internal union process, and SEIU rejected her appeal on June 24, 2020.

Cesiro sued Rite Aid and SEIU under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, alleging wrongful termination and breach of the union’s duty of fair representation. She also asserted hostile-work-environment and disability-discrimination claims against Rite Aid under the New York State Human Rights Law and the Westchester County Human Rights Law. Both defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a claim for relief.

Timeliness

Rite Aid argued that Cesiro’s federal claim was barred by a six-month statute of limitations. The court held that the claim accrued when SEIU informed Cesiro that it would not pursue her grievance to arbitration, although the complaint did not identify that date. The court further held that the limitations period was paused while Cesiro pursued her internal union appeal through June 24, 2020. Because Cesiro filed the action within six months of that date, the court concluded that the claim was not time-barred.

Federal Labor Claims

The court nevertheless dismissed the Section 301 claim against both defendants for failure to state a claim. The collective bargaining agreement provided that the employer had to give the union notice within fifteen days of an employee’s suspension or termination. The court interpreted that language according to its ordinary meaning: Rite Aid had to notify the union of the fact of the termination, not provide the grounds for it.

The court found that Rite Aid had provided SEIU with notice of Cesiro’s termination. Therefore, Cesiro had not plausibly alleged that Rite Aid breached the collective bargaining agreement. Without an adequately alleged breach by Rite Aid, her related claim that SEIU breached its duty of fair representation also failed. The court did not reach SEIU’s additional arguments concerning whether its conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, or whether its conduct caused Cesiro’s alleged injury.

State and County Claims

After dismissing the only federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—in relation to Cesiro’s New York State and Westchester County claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court denied leave to amend. Cesiro had already submitted an amended complaint after being told that more detail was needed, did not request another amendment, and based her federal claim on an interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement that contradicted its plain language. The court concluded that another amendment would be futile.

Judge Ramos granted both defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court dismissed Cesiro’s federal Section 301 claim, dismissed her New York State and Westchester County claims without prejudice, denied leave to amend, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.