Kelly v. Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-10923
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kelly v. Communications Workers, Judge Woods denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss Kelly’s employment-related claims.
Peter Kelly, the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and Verizon New York Inc.; the case’s claims were allowed to proceed past the motions-to-dismiss stage.
What happened
In Kelly v. Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Peter Kelly sued the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO and Verizon New York Inc. Kelly’s amended complaint alleges that Verizon breached a collective bargaining agreement by terminating his employment.
The complaint also alleges that the Union unlawfully discriminated against Kelly under the National Labor Relations Act and breached its duty to represent him fairly.
No party objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Judge Gregory H. Woods found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, and denied both motions to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Kelly v. Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO · No. 1:22-cv-10923
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 9, 2023
Background
Magistrate Judge Aaron issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court deny the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The recommendation addressed claims in Peter Kelly’s amended complaint against the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (the “Union”) and Verizon New York Inc. (”Verizon”).
Claims described in the recommendation
The amended complaint alleges that Verizon breached its collective bargaining agreement with the Union by terminating Kelly’s employment. It also alleges that the Union unlawfully discriminated against Kelly regarding the terms and conditions of his employment in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Finally, it alleges that the Union breached the duty of fair representation owed to Kelly. The opinion describes these as plausible claims; it does not decide their ultimate merits.
Court’s review and ruling
The parties did not submit objections within the fourteen-day period. Judge Gregory H. Woods therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. The Court accepted and adopted the recommendation in its entirety. Defendants’ motions to dismiss, listed at Docket Nos. 24 and 27, were denied, and the Clerk was directed to terminate those motions.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the Court ruled on motions to dismiss rather than deciding the ultimate merits of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.