Figueroa-Torres v. Kleiner

Background

Edwin Figueroa-Torres, Nicolas Peterson, Ruben Figueroa Torres, Alex Candelario, German Pena, and Luis Macias performed maintenance and other work at apartment buildings in the Bronx. They sued David Kleiner, also known in the caption by several aliases, and other individual and business defendants. Their claims included unpaid minimum wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law, discrimination claims, an unlawful wage-deduction claim, and retaliation claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The motion addressed claims added or expanded after Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants retaliated for the lawsuit by pressuring or tricking workers into supporting Amalgamated Local 298 Eastern States Joint Board, International Union of Allied Novelty and Production Workers, AFL-CIO. Plaintiffs alleged that collective bargaining agreements were then made with mandatory arbitration provisions covering their wage-and-hour claims, and that Defendants moved to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs also alleged that union dues were deducted from some paychecks, that they were denied discretionary COVID-relief payments, and that Ignatie Fried made threatening statements to German Pena while withholding checks.

The National Labor Relations Board received unfair-labor-practice charges concerning the alleged union conduct. The NLRB later entered settlement agreements with the charged parties. The opinion states that those settlements did not determine whether Defendants had violated the National Labor Relations Act.

Rule 12(b)(1) Rulings: Jurisdiction and National Labor Relations Act Preemption or Preclusion

The court granted Defendants’ motion under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s power to hear a claim, as to the following theories:

* Union-dues deductions under New York Labor Law: The court held that the claim based on allegedly unauthorized deductions for union dues was preempted by Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act. Under the court’s analysis, the allegations could establish an unfair labor practice involving union-dues authorizations, and the controversy was one that could be presented to the NLRB. The ruling did not apply to Plaintiffs’ other alleged unlawful deductions, including deductions involving advances and rent. * New York Labor Law retaliation based on union-related conduct and the motion to compel arbitration: The court held that this claim was preempted under the National Labor Relations Act. Deciding whether the collective bargaining agreements were valid, whether Local 298 validly represented Plaintiffs, and whether Defendants’ negotiations with the union violated federal labor law would require the court to address matters within the NLRB’s primary jurisdiction. * Fair Labor Standards Act retaliation based on the motion to compel arbitration: The court described this as a question of preclusion rather than preemption because both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the National Labor Relations Act are federal statutes. It nevertheless held that, on the specific facts alleged, the Fair Labor Standards Act retaliation theory was precluded by the National Labor Relations Act. Determining whether the arbitration motion was baseless would require resolving whether Local 298 was validly selected as Plaintiffs’ representative and whether the collective bargaining agreements were lawfully negotiated and executed—issues the court said were confined to the NLRB.

The court therefore granted the Rule 12(b)(1) motion with respect to the union-dues deduction theory and the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law retaliation theories based on the motion to compel arbitration. The court did not dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ wage-deduction or retaliation claims. Other wage-deduction theories remained, and retaliation theories not subject to the jurisdictional ruling were considered under Rule 12(b)(6).

Rule 12(b)(6) Rulings: Whether the Pleadings Stated Claims

Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. Defendants moved to dismiss retaliation theories based on the denial of discretionary payments and on Fried’s November 30, 2020 conversation with Pena.

Discretionary payments. The court granted the motion to dismiss the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law retaliation claims based on Defendants’ alleged refusal to provide discretionary COVID-relief payments. Plaintiffs alleged that other building-service employees received payments of approximately $700 to $1,000 in December 2020, while Plaintiffs did not. The court held that the alleged five-month gap between the filing of the lawsuit and the payments was not enough, by itself, to show causation. Plaintiffs also did not allege other facts showing retaliatory intent, such as comments linking the payments to participation in the lawsuit or facts showing that the employees who received payments were materially similar to Plaintiffs.

Pena’s conversation with Fried. The court denied the motion to dismiss the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law retaliation claims based on the November 30, 2020 conversation. Pena alleged that Fried offered two checks—one for $500 in unpaid vacation pay and another for $1,000—if Pena signed union-related papers, refused to let him review or copy the papers, and made statements about the delay and value of continuing the lawsuit. Pena understood Fried’s statement that he might no longer be employed by the time he received anything from the case as a threat to fire him.

The court held that these allegations plausibly showed an adverse employment action because a threat of termination combined with withholding allegedly earned vacation pay could dissuade a reasonable worker from pursuing wage claims. The court also found enough alleged evidence of retaliatory intent, including the earlier July 29, 2020 effort to have Pena sign union papers and Fried’s statements linking the checks and benefits to the lawsuit and union documents.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). It granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) of the union-dues deduction theory and the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law retaliation theories based on the motion to compel arbitration. It granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law retaliation theories based on the denial of discretionary payments. It denied the motion to dismiss the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law retaliation claims based on Pena’s conversation with Fried. Defendants were directed to file an amended answer by April 4, 2022.