Ragusa v. Acme Markets, Inc., 7:24-cv-05561

Frank A. Ragusa, a longtime ACME Markets employee with intellectual disabilities, was terminated following an incident involving physical contact with a customer.
His employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) requiring union representation for employment disputes.
The union disputed Ragusa's termination and the matter proceeded to arbitration; the arbitrator found just cause for discharge.
Ragusa sought to vacate the arbitration award in New York state court, claiming the union inadequately represented him, ACME failed ADA obligations, and procedural unfairness in the arbitration process.
ACME removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss and confirm the arbitral award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge arbitration award	Ragusa has standing as the grievant; union did not represent him fairly	Only Union and ACME are parties to arbitration, so Ragusa lacks standing unless Union breached duty of fair representation	Ragusa lacks standing; no breach of duty of fair representation by Union
Arbitrator exceeded authority	Arbitrator improperly relied on precedent, not limited to termination letter grounds	Arbitrator properly interpreted CBA; considered all evidence as allowed	Arbitrator acted within authority; references to other cases for guidance are permitted
Fundamental fairness of arbitration procedure	Hearing admission of hearsay and virtual format were unfair; union failed to call key witness	Arbitration rules allow flexibility; Union's choices were strategic, not bad faith	Arbitration was fundamentally fair; evidentiary and procedure rulings not ground for vacatur
ADA and public policy violations	ADA violations and denial of reasonable accommodation require vacatur	Arbitration's scope was limited to just cause for termination, not statutory violations	ADA issues/civil rights not grounds to vacate CBA arbitration award; no manifest disregard of law found

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Rule 12(b)(6) standard for pleading sufficiency)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Plausible claim requirement under federal pleading standards)
Loc. 1199, Drug, Hosp. & Health Care Emps. Union v. Brooks Drug Co., 956 F.2d 22 (Arbitrator may use guidance from multiple sources as long as essence comes from the CBA)
Jock v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 646 F.3d 113 (Arbitrator’s authority constrained by submitted questions and CBA)
White v. White Rose Food, a Div. of DiGiorgio Corp., 237 F.3d 174 (Plaintiff must allege violations by both the union and employer in a hybrid action)
Wallace v. Buttar, 378 F.3d 182 (Manifest disregard of law as a rarely-applied vacatur standard)
187 Concourse Assocs. v. Fishman, 399 F.3d 524 (Arbitrator’s authority determined by agreement of parties)