Morales v. Local 32BJ

Background

Lucia A. Morales proceeded without a lawyer and sued ABM, Brookfield Properties, and SEIU 32BJ, also called the Union. She alleged that workplace harassment and conflicts with coworkers and supervisors led to suspensions, a layoff, and her eventual termination. She also alleged that the Union represented her unfairly during arbitration.

Morales had worked for ABM at 200 Liberty Street as a cleaner. She became a shop steward in 2018. She described conflicts involving Gina Otero, an ABM project manager, and other workplace incidents, including suspensions for workplace conduct and for not properly wearing a mask. In November 2020, after a cake knife incident, ABM told her not to return while it investigated. She later received a layoff notice, and she was ultimately terminated in March 2021.

The Union pursued grievances concerning Morales’s suspensions, layoff, and termination. An arbitrator issued an award on July 12, 2022. The arbitrator reduced Morales’s five-day mask-related suspension to three days and found that ABM had just cause to terminate her based on statements she made after the cake knife incident. Morales filed this lawsuit on October 11, 2022. ABM and Brookfield filed one motion to dismiss, and the Union filed another.

Claims and legal standards

The court treated Morales’s allegations as asserting a hybrid claim under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and related labor-law theories. In such a claim, the employee must generally show both that the employer violated the collective bargaining agreement and that the union breached its duty of fair representation. That duty requires a union to represent members without hostility or discrimination, in good faith and honestly, and without arbitrary conduct.

The court reviewed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the pleaded facts plausibly show a legal claim. It accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motions and gave Morales’s filings the special consideration generally provided to people proceeding without lawyers. But the court stated that this consideration did not allow it to invent allegations that Morales had not pleaded.

Court’s analysis

The court first concluded that Morales’s fair-representation claims were not likely untimely. It reasoned that she may not have known of the Union’s alleged breach until she lost the arbitration on July 12, 2022, and that she filed suit within six months of that date.

The court nevertheless held that Morales had not plausibly alleged a breach of the Union’s duty. Her complaints about the Union’s failure to present certain claims or witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, challenge testimony, or follow her instructions were, at most, allegations of strategic decisions or errors in judgment. She did not allege facts showing that those decisions were arbitrary, discriminatory, or made in bad faith. She also did not adequately allege that the Union’s conduct caused the unfavorable arbitration result or seriously undermined the arbitration process.

The court also held that Morales could not establish the employer-breach part of the hybrid claim. Federal courts give substantial deference to labor arbitration awards and do not ordinarily reweigh the evidence or second-guess the arbitrator’s reasoning. The court found no basis to vacate the arbitration award. It further stated that Morales had not alleged that her protected activities as a shop steward caused her termination, particularly because the arbitrator found that her statements supported termination for just cause.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss, identified as ECF Nos. 31 and 34. The court concluded that Morales had not pleaded either required element of her hybrid claim and that amendment would be futile. It directed the defendants to serve the opinion on Morales by mail, directed them to file proof of service within seven days, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.