Sokolowski v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 849 F. Supp. 2d 412

Sokolowski worked for MTA about 22 years as a Mechanical Foreman, with an unblemished record until termination on Sept. 2, 2010, at age 45.
On July 16, 2010, MTA personnel found the plaintiff with marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and alcohol at Grand Central Terminal and he admitted smoking marijuana the prior weekend.
The MTA charged three violations: violation of Substance Abuse Policy No. 21-012, conduct unbecoming, and failure to perform duties; he was removed that day but did not receive a SAVE waiver.
ARASA’s SAVE Agreement permits a waiver for first offenses under certain conditions and requires EAP counseling and a waiver from an EAP counselor for reinstatement.
The Board upheld each violation, found him ineligible for a SAVE waiver, and his termination was sustained; the plaintiff then challenged the Board’s decision under the Railway Labor Act and pursued supplemental NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims.
The court dismissed the federal claims for lack of jurisdiction under the RLA and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdictional review viability under RLA	Sokolowski argues the Board exceeded its jurisdiction.	MTA argues the Board’s decision falls within narrow judicial review limits.	Board did not exceed its jurisdiction.
SAVE waiver eligibility based on multiple violations	Board invented an exception for egregious charges to deny a waiver.	SAVE applies only to a single violation; multiple violations render waiver ineligible.	Board correctly held ineligible for SAVE waiver.
Standards of review and interpretation of SAVE Agreement	Board misread or manipulated the SAVE provisions to deny relief.	Board applied SAVE as written and did not substitute its own justice.	Board acted within its jurisdiction and did not misapply the SAVE Agreement.
Subject matter jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction	Court should review the federal claims and exercise jurisdiction over state-law claims.	Lack of federal jurisdiction forecloses review; NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims dismissed under 1367(c)(3).	Federal claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims declined to be heard.

Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 406 U.S. 320 (1972) (limits of judicial review under the Railway Labor Act)
CSX Transp., Inc. v. United Transp. Union, 950 F.2d 872 (2d Cir.1991) (narrow judicial review of adjustment boards)
Gunther v. San Diego & Arizona E. Ry. Co., 382 U.S. 257 (1965) (jurisdictional review requires the award be wholly baseless)
Segal v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 63 F.Supp.2d 373 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (limits on review: whether arbitrators did the job; not whether they did it well)
United Transp. Union v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 588 F.3d 805 (2d Cir.2009) (describes narrow review of special adjustment board decisions)