Lax v City University of New York
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Labor union liability for alleged religiously hostile work environment and retaliation in a public higher-education workplace.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the motion of Professional Staff Congress and Barbara Bowen under CPLR 3211(a)(7) [rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action], allowing the hostile work environment and retaliation claims against them to proceed.
The Appellate Division reversed the order insofar as appealed from and dismissed the complaint against the union defendants.
The complaint did not allege that union representatives committed discriminatory acts as part of union activity, that the union breached its duty of fair representation, or that the union took adverse action in response to protected activity. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC § 2000e-2(c)(1) [making it unlawful for a labor organization to exclude, expel, or otherwise discriminate against an individual based on a protected characteristic], and parallel state and city human rights laws, those allegations were necessary to state claims against a union.
Background
The plaintiffs, employees of Kingsborough Community College within the City University of New York (CUNY), sued CUNY, certain coworkers, Professional Staff Congress, and the union's president Barbara Bowen, alleging religious discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. As to the union defendants, the plaintiffs claimed they participated in discrimination based on religion. The union defendants moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7).
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the union defendants' motion to dismiss insofar as asserted against them, concluding at the pleading stage that the claims could proceed.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that a union generally has no affirmative duty to prevent workplace harassment because the employer controls the work environment. A union may be liable only when discriminatory conduct is tied to union activity, such as when representatives act in a representational capacity and the union breaches its duty of fair representation. The court found the complaint lacked allegations that any discriminatory acts were undertaken by union representatives on behalf of the union, were related to union activity, or amounted to a breach of the duty of fair representation. It also found the retaliation claims deficient because several plaintiffs were not alleged to have engaged in protected activity, and the others were not alleged to have suffered adverse union action or to have made complaints directly to the union. The court therefore granted dismissal of the hostile work environment and retaliation claims against Professional Staff Congress and Barbara Bowen.
Legal Significance
The decision clarifies that unions are not automatically liable for hostile work environment or retaliation claims arising in the workplace merely because they represent the employees. To plead viable claims under Title VII, Executive Law § 296(1)(c) [making it unlawful for a union to exclude, expel, or discriminate in any way against its members, employers, or employees], and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107(1)(c) [making it unlawful for a union to exclude, expel, deny available membership, or discriminate against members, employers, or employees], a plaintiff must connect the challenged conduct to union activity, show a breach of the duty of fair representation, and allege discriminatory or retaliatory union action.
A labor union is not liable for workplace discrimination simply because it represents the employees; the complaint must specifically allege union-based conduct, a breach of the duty of fair representation, and, for retaliation, protected activity known to the union plus an adverse action by the union.