Marsalisi v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America

Background

Peter Marsalisi sued the New York City District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America under Sections 101(a)(2), 102, and 609 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, and Section 215 of the New York Labor Law. He alleged that the District Council terminated him on October 6, 2017, in retaliation for investigating corruption and that the termination was part of a practice of intimidating and retaliating against union dissidents. Marsalisi had worked as a carpenter investigator in the District Council’s Office of the Inspector General. He identified investigations that supervisors allegedly stopped or removed from him and referred to the alleged terminations or departures of Peter Corrigan and Michael Donnelly.

Marsalisi originally sued both the District Council and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. He later voluntarily dismissed the United Brotherhood as a defendant. The District Council moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Federal labor-law claims

The court dismissed Marsalisi’s claim under Section 101(a)(2). That provision protects union members’ rights to speak, assemble, and express opinions in the context of the union’s democratic process. The court explained that complaints made only to union leaders or supervisors generally do not qualify as protected speech under this provision. Marsalisi alleged that he discussed corruption and investigations with supervisors, the District Council president, and the Independent Monitor, but he did not allege that he spoke with other union members about those matters.

The court also held that Marsalisi did not adequately plead the limited exception for termination from union employment. That exception can apply when termination is part of a deliberate and broad effort to suppress dissent within the union. The court found that Marsalisi did not connect the older events discussed in a prior related proceeding to his termination, and that his allegations concerning Corrigan and Donnelly were too broad and unsupported by specific facts. He also did not allege that he had become a symbol of a movement among the union’s rank-and-file members. The Section 101(a)(2) claim was therefore dismissed.

The court dismissed the Section 609 claim for similar reasons. Section 609 prohibits a labor organization from disciplining members for exercising rights protected by the labor-law provisions. The court concluded that Marsalisi had not adequately alleged either protected speech or a deliberate retaliatory scheme to suppress dissent. The opinion states that his termination as a Local 212 business agent was not part of such a scheme, although elsewhere it describes him as a carpenter investigator.

State-law claim and disposition

Marsalisi’s New York Labor Law Section 215 claim was based on the same alleged retaliation and corruption investigations. After dismissing all claims within its original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear a related state-law claim—in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). It dismissed the Section 215 claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and did not reach its merits.

The court ordered that the District Council’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the case.