Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress/CUNY

Background

Six professors employed by the City University of New York were included in a bargaining unit exclusively represented by the Professional Staff Congress/CUNY (PSC). Each had resigned from the PSC. The professors alleged that the PSC’s political advocacy, particularly concerning Israel and Palestine, conflicted with their views. They also challenged being represented together with other instructional staff and alleged that the PSC’s representation of them was inadequate.

The complaint asserted three counts. Count One challenged the professors’ required representation by the PSC. Count Two challenged their required inclusion in the same bargaining unit as other faculty and staff. Count Three concerned alleged wage deductions for union dues after three plaintiffs—Avraham Goldstein, Frimette Kass-Shraibman, and Mitchell Langbert—had resigned from the PSC.

The professors also challenged a 2019 amendment to New York’s Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act, commonly called the Taylor Law. That amendment limits a public-sector union’s duty to represent nonmembers in certain individualized matters, including employer questioning, statutory or administrative proceedings, and some grievance or disciplinary proceedings when the nonmember may proceed with a separate advocate.

Rulings on Counts One and Two

The defendants moved to dismiss Counts One and Two under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim even assuming its adequately pleaded facts are true.

The court held that Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight controlled the professors’ First Amendment claims. In the court’s reading, Knight upheld exclusive representation of public employees in collective bargaining and rejected claims that such representation violated the speech or associational rights of employees who did not belong to the union. The court also relied on Second Circuit and other federal appellate decisions applying Knight in similar circumstances.

The professors argued that Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31 undermined Knight. The court disagreed. It explained that Janus invalidated mandatory payments by nonmembers to support a public-sector union’s speech, but did not invalidate exclusive representation itself. The court therefore held that the professors’ challenge to representation by the PSC in Count One was foreclosed by governing precedent.

The court reached the same result for Count Two. It held that placing employees with differing viewpoints in one bargaining unit for collective-bargaining purposes did not itself amount to constitutionally protected expressive association. The complaint did not allege that the professors had to endorse or repeat the PSC’s or other bargaining-unit members’ views.

The court also rejected the professors’ challenge to the 2019 Taylor Law amendment. Reading the amendment in light of Janus, the court held that it limited the union’s required representation of nonmembers in individualized proceedings while preserving its duty to represent them in collective bargaining. The court concluded that the amendment, on its face, did not violate the professors’ First Amendment rights or right to fair representation.

The court therefore granted the motions to dismiss Counts One and Two and dismissed those counts.

Count Three and Final Disposition

The professors initially sought prospective and retroactive relief concerning alleged post-resignation dues deductions. They later conceded that their claims for prospective relief were not justiciable. Goldstein accepted an offer of judgment from the City for $223.35, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs to be determined by the court.

After those developments, only claims for retroactive relief by Goldstein, Kass-Shraibman, and Langbert against the PSC remained. The PSC had not moved to dismiss those claims. The court therefore denied as moot all motions to dismiss Count Three. The court stated that the case would proceed to discovery on the surviving claims concerning dues and interest allegedly deducted from those plaintiffs’ wages after their resignations.

Judge Engelmayer dismissed all other defendants from the case because no live claims remained against them. The order also directed the parties to submit a proposed case-management plan for discovery.