175 F. Supp. 3d 82
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Wilder worked for the VA from March 16, 2008 to April 16, 2013 and was terminated for allegedly failing to complete a VA form and follow instructions.
- Wilder filed a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement; the Union initially agreed to pursue arbitration but then withdrew and told her she would have to proceed at her own expense.
- Wilder appealed to the MSPB; the MSPB later dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction (timing and basis unclear from the record).
- In July 2014 Wilder filed an EEOC complaint alleging sex and race discrimination based on her April 16, 2013 termination; she received a right-to-sue letter in September 2014 and sued in December 2014.
- The Complaint named the VA, numerous individual VA employees, DHS, DHS officers, the Union, and the Union president; claims included Title VII/state/city discrimination and a CSRA duty-of-fair-representation claim against the Union.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1); the Court dismissed all claims but granted leave to amend only the Title VII claim against the VA (naming the VA Secretary) to address timeliness/equitable-tolling issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilder timely exhausted Title VII administrative remedies | Wilder pursued EEOC relief in July 2014 and then sued; her filings should allow her Title VII claim | Defendants argue Wilder failed to contact an EEO counselor within 45 days and her EEOC complaint was untimely | Court: Dismiss Title VII claim for failure to exhaust/timeliness; leave to amend re: equitable tolling only as to VA |
| Whether equitable tolling saves the late EEOC filing | Wilder implies union misconduct and procedural confusion justify tolling | Defendants say no facts support extraordinary circumstances or diligence required for tolling | Court: No factual basis in complaint to permit tolling; dismissal without prejudice to amend to plead tolling facts |
| Whether a duty-of-fair-representation claim against the Union is properly in federal court | Wilder alleges Union misled her and mishandled arbitration/grievance, causing loss of rights | Union contends FLRA has exclusive jurisdiction over such claims under CSRA/Karahalios | Court: Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; FLRA has exclusive jurisdiction |
| Whether individual VA employees, DHS, or the Union can be defendants in Title VII action | Wilder named multiple individuals, DHS, and the Union as defendants | Defendants argue Title VII suits against federal agencies must name the agency head; individuals and non-employers are not proper Title VII defendants | Court: Amendment futile as to individuals, DHS, and Union; only VA Secretary may be named for Title VII claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of plausibility standard to complaints)
- ATSI Commc’ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2007) (pleading and inference standards for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820 (1976) (Title VII exclusive remedy for federal employees and administrative-exhaustion framework)
- Fernandez v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2006) (CSRA framework distinguishing pure, mixed claims and negotiated grievance vs statutory route)
- Mathirampuzha v. Potter, 548 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2008) (EEOC exhaustion requirements for federal employees)
- Boos v. Runyon, 201 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2000) (timeliness and administrative exhaustion under EEOC regulations)
- Karahalios v. Nat’l Fed’n of Fed. Emps., 489 U.S. 527 (1989) (FLRA exclusive jurisdiction over union duty-of-fair-representation claims)
- Baldwin Cty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 (1984) (courts must enforce procedural filing deadlines)
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (elements of workplace harassment under Title VII)