McLeod v. Verizon New York, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16242
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Vince McLeod (employee) worked ~12 years as a Verizon field service technician and was terminated after an investigation into unauthorized movie downloads tied to a serial-numbered cable box. McLeod denies involvement and claims lack of chain-of-custody for the box.
- McLeod’s employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Verizon and the Communications Workers of America (CWA) that prescribed grievance and arbitration procedures; discharge cases are subject to restricted arbitration remedies.
- The CWA sent McLeod a March 9, 2012 letter stating it would not pursue his grievance and advising him of an internal appeal deadline (March 26, 2012). McLeod did not appeal.
- McLeod filed an Article 78 petition in New York state court on March 10, 2013 against Verizon complaining of wrongful termination and the union’s alleged failure to represent him; Verizon removed the case to federal court under LMRA § 301 complete preemption.
- Verizon moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing McLeod’s claims are preempted by federal labor law, the hybrid § 301/duty-of-fair-representation (“hybrid”) claim is time‑barred, and any Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim fails because Verizon is a private actor. Verizon also sought Rule 11 sanctions, which it raised in its reply.
Issues
| Issue | McLeod's Argument | Verizon's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McLeod's claims are preempted by LMRA § 301 | Claims arise from employment termination and union mishandling; framed as wrongful termination and due-process violations | CBA governs employment; state claims implicate CBA interpretation and are completely preempted | Preemption applies; removal was proper and federal § 301 framework governs |
| Whether hybrid § 301 claim is timely (statute of limitations) | Implicitly that union breached duty and employer breached CBA; McLeod did not explicitly contest timing | Hybrid claims have a six‑month limitations period running from when employee knew or should have known of the union breach; McLeod received notice on March 9, 2012 and filed after more than six months | Claim is time‑barred; hybrid § 301 claim dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether McLeod stated a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due‑process claim | Union’s action waived his post‑termination hearing rights and deprived him of due process | Private employer is not a state actor; at‑will/private employment does not give rise to procedural due‑process claim; plaintiff abandoned the claim by not opposing | Due‑process claim abandoned and, alternatively, fails on the merits |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions and fees are proper | N/A (McLeod opposed but did not concede) | McLeod filed a frivolous/untimely suit and refused to withdraw despite warnings; fees warranted | Sanctions denied because Verizon failed to comply with Rule 11 procedural requirements (no separate motion; no 21‑day safe harbor) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (hybrid § 301/fair‑representation framework and limitations period)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (employee may sue employer when union breached duty of fair representation)
- Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, 486 U.S. 399 (§ 301 preemption where state law requires interpretation of CBA)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (purpose of Rule 11 to deter baseless filings)
- Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 194 F.3d 323 (Rule 11 due‑process requirements; sanctions exercised with restraint)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (treatment of certain procedural due‑process principles)
- Margo v. Weiss, 213 F.3d 55 (objective unreasonableness standard for Rule 11 sanctions)