864 F.3d 222
2d Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Hector J. Figueroa, president of SEIU Local 32BJ (the Local), sued the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to bar enforcement of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) against the Local when it acts as a collective bargaining representative.
- Multiple union members filed NYSHRL complaints with SDHR alleging discriminatory or retaliatory failures by the Local to process grievances or demand arbitration; most complaints were also dual-filed with the EEOC under federal law.
- The Local argued the NLRA-implied duty of fair representation preempted the NYSHRL whenever the union acted as the exclusive bargaining representative, depriving SDHR of jurisdiction.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Local, holding the duty of fair representation preempted the NYSHRL to the extent the union acted in its representational capacity, and awarded declaratory (but not injunctive) relief.
- The Second Circuit reversed, holding the NLRA duty of fair representation does not field-preempt the NYSHRL and, under conflict-preemption principles, does not generally preempt NYSHRL discrimination claims against unions acting as collective-bargaining representatives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NLRA duty of fair representation field-preempts NYSHRL when union acts as collective-bargaining rep | NLRA (via Vaca) occupies the field for union representational duties; state discrimination claims are preempted | NYSHRL enforcement is a traditional state police power; Vaca does not create field preemption over state anti-discrimination laws | Rejected field preemption; Vaca disavows a total field-preemption approach and Congress did not clearly manifest intent to occupy the field |
| Whether NLRA duty of fair representation conflict-preempts NYSHRL discrimination claims | Preemption is required because federal labor policy should exclusively govern representational duties | No impossibility or substantial obstacle: NLRA and NYSHRL largely align on anti-discrimination; Title VII preserves state remedies and worksharing with state agencies | Rejected general conflict preemption; NYSHRL and duty of fair representation can coexist and are reconcilable |
| Whether enforcement by SDHR of NYSHRL against unions conflicts with Title VII/EEOC scheme | Union argued state enforcement intrudes on federal labor scheme and remedies | Commissioner pointed to Title VII text preserving state anti-discrimination laws and EEOC worksharing provisions | Held Title VII’s preservation of state law and coordination with state agencies supports coexistence; SDHR enforcement not categorically preempted |
| Relief requested: broad injunction dismissing SDHR complaints against Local | Local sought broad injunction/protocol to dismiss SDHR complaints unless complainants were employees of the Local | Commissioner argued SDHR has interest in investigating claims, public interest supports enforcement | District court denied permanent injunction; Second Circuit affirmed denial of injunctive relief and reversed declaratory judgment in favor of Local |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (establishes duty of fair representation and explains its federal scope)
- Brown v. Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int’l Union Local 54, 468 U.S. 491 (1984) (rejects wholesale field preemption of labor-management relations)
- Farmer v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 430 U.S. 290 (1977) (discusses tension between federal labor scheme and state regulation)
- Garmon v. Los Angeles, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (precludes state regulation of activities arguably protected or prohibited by NLRA — Garmon preemption)
- Lodge 76, Int’l Ass’n of Machinists v. Wis. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 427 U.S. 132 (1976) (describes Machinists preemption for areas Congress intended unregulated)
- Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 673 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2012) (framework for implicit preemption inquiry)
- Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378 (2d Cir. 2015) (explains duty of fair representation standard: arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith)
- Adkins v. Mireles, 526 F.3d 531 (9th Cir. 2008) (applies conflict-preemption analysis to duty of fair representation claims)
- Markham v. Wertin, 861 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2017) (holds duty of fair representation does not preempt state discrimination and retaliation claims)