Sokolowski v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 723 F.3d 187

On July 16, 2010, MTA police discovered Sokolowski with marijuana and tested positive; MTA charged him and dismissed him following internal discipline procedures.
A SAVE Agreement promised a possible waiver and committee-of-three process for certain first-offense substance violations; Sokolowski’s representative had requested a committee meeting but the MTA did not convene one.
Sokolowski appealed the dismissal through the contractual special adjustment board (SAB) created under a 1987 SAB Agreement, which conferred the board “exclusive jurisdiction over all final appeals.”
Before the SAB, Sokolowski submitted materials and stated that “the dispute is now properly before the Board for adjudication”; the SAB denied relief, finding no entitlement to a SAVE waiver.
Sokolowski sued in federal district court, arguing the SAB lacked jurisdiction because the MTA’s failure to convene the committee-of-three meant his appeal was not a “final” appeal under the SAB Agreement; the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on waiver grounds.
The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that by expressly conceding the SAB’s jurisdiction before the board, Sokolowski waived any later jurisdictional challenge to the SAB.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to review the SAB decision under 45 U.S.C. § 153 First(q) because the SAB exceeded its jurisdiction	Sokolowski: SAB exceeded jurisdiction because MTA’s failure to convene the SAVE Agreement’s committee-of-three meant the appeal was not a “final” appeal	MTA: SAB had jurisdiction under the parties’ SAB Agreement and Sokolowski explicitly conceded the SAB’s jurisdiction before the board	Court: Waiver—Sokolowski expressly conceded jurisdiction before the SAB, so he waived the challenge; affirm dismissal

Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (standard for dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Aurecchione v. Schoolman Transp. Sys., Inc., 426 F.3d 635 (2d Cir.) (appellate review standards for jurisdictional dismissals)
Ollman v. Special Bd. of Adjustment No. 1063, 527 F.3d 239 (2d Cir.) (RLA review principles)
Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen, 558 U.S. 67 (Supreme Court) (NRAB jurisdiction cannot be waived by parties)
Opals on Ice Lingerie v. Body Lines Inc., 320 F.3d 362 (2d Cir.) (waiver of arbitration objections by participation)
United Indus. Workers v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 987 F.2d 162 (3d Cir.) (contractual arbitration jurisdiction can be waived by participation)
Howard Univ. v. Metro. Campus Police Officer’s Union, 512 F.3d 716 (D.C. Cir.) (similar waiver rule in arbitration context)
Piggly Wiggly Operators’ Warehouse v. Piggly Wiggly Operators’ Warehouse Indep. Truck Drivers Union, 611 F.2d 580 (5th Cir.) (same)