Human Services Council of New York v. City of New York

Background

Human Services Council of New York and several human-services organizations sued the City of New York, Mayor Eric Adams in his official capacity, and Comptroller Brad Landers in his official capacity. The plaintiffs challenged New York City Administrative Code § 6-145, also called Local Law 87 of 2021. The law requires certain human-services contractors and subcontractors, within 90 days after a City service contract is awarded or renewed, either to submit an attestation that they have entered into labor peace agreements with labor organizations or to attest that their covered employees are not represented by a labor organization and that no labor organization has sought to represent them.

The plaintiffs alleged that the law improperly gives union leaders a role in the City’s contracting process, interferes with workers’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, and is preempted—displaced or overridden—by federal law. The opinion does not decide those constitutional or federal-preemption claims. The court had previously denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice.

DC-37’s Motion to Intervene

District Council 37 moved for permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(B). Permissive intervention allows a nonparty to join a case when it has a claim or defense sharing a common legal or factual question with the existing action. The court also considers whether the motion was timely, whether intervention would delay or prejudice the original parties, the proposed intervenor’s interests, whether those interests are adequately represented, and whether the intervenor could help develop the factual record.

DC-37 argued that its motion was timely, that it had a strong interest in defending Local Law 87, and that its participation would help develop the factual record. HSC argued that DC-37 lacked a legally cognizable interest, that the City adequately represented DC-37’s interests, and that intervention would prejudice HSC and delay the case. The defendants did not oppose the motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that DC-37’s motion was timely because it was filed less than two months after the complaint and before HSC filed its preliminary-injunction motion. The court also found that DC-37 shared common legal questions with the case, including whether Local Law 87 is constitutionally valid and whether federal labor law preempts it.

The court determined that DC-37 had a direct and substantial interest in the litigation. The opinion states that DC-37 helped draft and advocated for Local Law 87, represents approximately 25,000 private-sector employees working for nonprofit human-services organizations, negotiates labor peace agreements, and could submit verified complaints about alleged violations of the law. The court further concluded that DC-37’s firsthand knowledge of labor peace negotiations and its constituents’ experiences could produce a more complete factual record. Although the City and DC-37 shared the objective of preserving the law, the court explained that adequate representation by an existing party is not an absolute bar to permissive intervention.

Disposition

The court granted DC-37’s motion to intervene. Separately, because the court had already denied HSC’s preliminary-injunction motion, it denied as moot DC-37’s motion for leave to file an opposition to that preliminary-injunction request. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate both motions. The order did not resolve whether Local Law 87 is constitutional or preempted by federal labor law.