Saunders v. New York Convention Center Operating Corporation

Background

Edward Saunders sued the New York Convention Center Operating Corporation, doing business as the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, and the New York City District Council of Carpenters. He alleged that the defendants discriminated against him because of his race and that the discrimination ultimately led to his termination in April 2018. His claim against the Carpenters Council arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a federal law protecting equal rights to make and enforce contracts. His separate claim against the Javits Center arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The court’s earlier rulings dismissed some claims against the Javits Center and dismissed Saunders’s claims against the Carpenters Council while allowing him to amend. Saunders then filed a second amended complaint. The Carpenters Council moved to dismiss that complaint for failure to state a legally sufficient claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion, but it did not accept legal conclusions without supporting facts.

Legal standard

A union-discrimination claim under § 1981 must allege both that the union breached its duty to fairly represent the member and that the union’s conduct was motivated by discriminatory intent. A breach may involve conduct that is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and the plaintiff must show a connection between that conduct and the resulting injury. At the pleading stage, the plaintiff has a relatively small burden to allege facts suggesting discriminatory motivation, but conclusory assertions are insufficient.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Saunders adequately alleged the first part of the claim. He alleged that he contacted the Carpenters Council’s inspector general about his suspension and that the inspector general promised to investigate but never responded. The court found that these allegations plausibly suggested the union’s inaction was perfunctory and therefore potentially arbitrary.

The court nevertheless held that Saunders did not adequately allege discriminatory intent. Allegations that the Javits Center disciplined Black workers more harshly than white workers did not, by themselves, show that the separate union acted with racial animus. The court also found that allegations about other workers lacked enough detail showing that the union had a duty to assist them or that its inaction was racially motivated.

The court considered Saunders’s allegation that the union refused to file a grievance for Lorraine Alvarado, a Black carpenter who had been removed from the work floor after an altercation with a white coworker who was not punished. It concluded that the refusal, without additional facts about the decisionmakers, timing, or grievance process, did not support an inference of discrimination. The court similarly found that racist remarks by a shop steward and other individuals were insufficient because Saunders did not allege that those people played a role in the union’s handling of his complaints.

The court rejected Saunders’s argument that the union’s alleged failure to intervene in discriminatory conduct, standing alone, established discriminatory intent. Saunders needed to allege facts supporting an inference that the union failed to act because of his race, rather than for one of the many potentially legitimate reasons a union might decline to pursue a grievance.

Disposition

Because the second amended complaint did not allege facts supporting an inference that the union’s conduct was racially motivated, the court dismissed Saunders’s § 1981 claim against the Carpenters Council. Judge Gregory Woods also denied Saunders leave to amend again, concluding that a third attempt would be futile. The court granted the Carpenters Council’s motion to dismiss and directed the clerk to terminate that motion.