Figueroa-Torres v. Kleiner, 1:20-cv-04851

Background

Plaintiffs are maintenance workers at Bronx residential buildings who sued their employers and individual managers for unpaid minimum wage and overtime under the FLSA and NYLL (and also brought NYCHRL and § 1981 claims); they later amended to add unlawful wage-deduction and retaliation theories.
After this suit began, Plaintiffs allege Defendants approached (mostly non–English-speaking) workers and pressured or tricked them into signing union authorization papers for Local 298, and Defendants negotiated CBAs with Local 298 that included broad mandatory-arbitration clauses covering past claims.
Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration under those CBAs; Plaintiffs filed unfair-labor-practice charges at the NLRB; the NLRB entered settlement agreements with the charged parties (without a merits adjudication) and Local 298 later disclaimed interest.
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (SAC) added (a) an unlawful wage-deduction claim alleging unauthorized payroll deductions for union dues, and (b) retaliation claims (FLSA and NYLL) alleging Defendants coerced union membership, negotiated arbitration provisions to divest the court, and filed the arbitration motion as retaliation; they also alleged discrete retaliation theories: denial of discretionary COVID payments and Fried’s November 30, 2020 interaction with Plaintiff Pena.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, invoking NLRA/Garmon preemption or preclusion) and Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).
The district court granted in part and denied in part: it dismissed the unlawful-deduction claim to the extent it rests on unauthorized union-dues deductions; dismissed retaliation claims (FLSA and NYLL) insofar as they rest on the motion to compel arbitration/union-coercion scheme; dismissed retaliation claims based on denial of discretionary payments; and denied dismissal of retaliation claims based on Fried’s November 30, 2020 statements to Pena.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Unlawful wage-deduction claim alleging unauthorized union-dues payroll deductions	Defendants deducted union dues without authorization; claims are proper NYLL wage-deduction claims	Deductions raising an arguable NLRA Section 8 violation are within the NLRB’s exclusive jurisdiction (Garmon preemption)	Dismissed under 12(b)(1): claim preempted by NLRA for dues deductions
Retaliation (NYLL) based on alleged coercion into Local 298, execution of CBAs with broad arbitration clauses, and filing motion to compel arbitration	Coercion and arbitration scheme were retaliatory efforts to divest the court and punish plaintiffs for filing suit	The allegations concern conduct arguably prohibited by the NLRA and present controversies that must be resolved by the NLRB (Garmon)	Dismissed under 12(b)(1): NYLL retaliation claim preempted by NLRA because identical to matters for NLRB
Retaliation (FLSA) alleging same union-coercion/arbitration-motive	FLSA retaliation covers defendants’ allegedly retaliatory conduct	NLRA preclusion: adjudication would require resolving NLRA questions; NLRB has primary authority	Dismissed under 12(b)(1)/preclusion: FLSA retaliation claim precluded because it depends on NLRA questions reserved to NLRB
Retaliation (FLSA and NYLL) based on defendants’ alleged refusal to provide discretionary COVID-relief payments	Being passed over for discretionary payments was adverse and retaliatory	No causal nexus or other facts plausibly show retaliatory motive; timing alone insufficient	Dismissed under 12(b)(6): plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead causation/retaliatory intent
Retaliation (FLSA and NYLL) based on Fried’s November 30, 2020 statements to Pena (threat to fire, conditioned checks on signing union papers, discouraging litigation)	Fried tied payment receipt to signing union papers and threatened termination; that is adverse and motivated by retaliation	Threat alone may be insufficient; plaintiff must allege entitlement to withheld payments	Survives 12(b)(6): Pena plausibly alleged adverse action (withheld earned vacation pay + threats) and causal/retaliatory intent

Key Cases Cited

San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (establishes NLRA preemption where activity is arguably subject to Sections 7 or 8 and NLRB has primary jurisdiction)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Cnty. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (1978) (refines Garmon inquiry; asks whether state controversy is identical to that which could be presented to NLRB)
Farmer v. Carpenters, 430 U.S. 290 (1977) (warns against inflexible Garmon application where state interests are substantial)
Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (instructs courts to consider the nature of interests and effect on national labor policy in preemption analysis)
Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60 (2008) (discusses federal labor policy and preemption concerns)
Belknap, Inc. v. Hale, 463 U.S. 491 (1983) (clarifies Sears: preemption focuses on whether controversies are identical)
Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (plaintiff bears burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction)
Mullins v. City of New York, 626 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2010) (elements for retaliation claims under FLSA/NYLL)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (further articulates pleading standard)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims)