Cruz v. 32BJ SEIU

Background

Carina Cruz, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that SEIU Local 32BJ discriminated against her based on race and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Cruz worked as an office cleaner for ABM Industry Groups, LLC, and the Union represented her under a collective bargaining agreement. The agreement limited office-cleaner workloads to an average of 4,000 square feet per hour.

Cruz filed two workload grievances in 2018, asserting that her assigned area exceeded the contractual limit. The Union measured her area at approximately 33,742 cleanable square feet, while noting that the measurement might include an error of 685 square feet. The Union later measured coworker Feruze Borici’s assigned area at approximately 40,665 square feet. In March 2019, the Union decided not to take Cruz’s two grievances to arbitration but decided to arbitrate Borici’s grievance. Cruz claimed that this difference in treatment was discriminatory because Borici was non-Hispanic.

Summary-judgment standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard, under which judgment is proper when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Because Cruz represented herself, the court read her submissions liberally and considered the strongest arguments reasonably suggested by them.

Title VII claim

The court granted the Union summary judgment on the Title VII claim. It explained that, when a union’s handling of a member’s grievance is challenged under Title VII, the claim generally incorporates the union’s duty of fair representation. That duty requires a union to avoid arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad-faith conduct.

The court assumed that Cruz satisfied the minimal initial showing needed to raise an inference of discrimination because she identified a coworker outside her protected class who was treated differently. The court then applied the burden-shifting framework used in employment-discrimination cases. The Union offered a nondiscriminatory explanation: Borici’s work area was substantially larger, so the Union believed her grievance was more likely to succeed in arbitration and would establish a better precedent.

The court held that Cruz did not produce enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find that race or national origin was a motivating factor. It found no genuine dispute that Borici’s assigned area was much larger than Cruz’s. Cruz’s evidence about additional pantry-cleaning duties and a building-specifications document did not establish that her assigned area was comparable to Borici’s. The court also considered evidence that the Union had advocated for Cruz by seeking additional compensation for her excessive workload and by persuading ABM to remove another cleaning assignment.

The court separately held that Cruz had not shown that the Union acted arbitrarily or in bad faith. The Union stated that it did not pursue arbitration because it believed an arbitrator was unlikely to award Cruz compensatory damages and that an unfavorable decision could harm workers covered by the relevant agreement. Cruz offered no evidence rebutting that explanation. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the Title VII claim.

New York claims

The court also granted the Union summary judgment on Cruz’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Although the City law uses a less demanding standard for showing that a person was treated less well, the court held that Cruz still had to show that discriminatory motive caused the treatment. Viewing the evidence in Cruz’s favor, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that the Union treated her less well because of race or national origin.

The court declined to reach the Union’s argument that the New York claims were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because that argument was an untimely request to reconsider an earlier ruling. The court instead resolved the New York claims on the discrimination grounds discussed in the opinion.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the Union’s motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 176 and close the case.