Sotomayor’s District Court Decisions on Traditional Labor Matters

There are three cases that fall into this general category. The U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t consider nearly as many traditional labor cases as employment cases, but Judge Sotomayor obviously has judicial experience dealing with labor issues.

Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, Inc., 880 F. Supp. 246 (SDNY 1995)
This may be the case for which Sotomayor is best known during her tenure as a district court judge. In fact, her decision is credited by some as having saved professional baseball.

A strike by baseball players during 1994 resulted in a significantly shortened season, including no post-season play — that is to say, no World Series. Since no new collective bargaining agreement had been negotiated as the 1995 season approached and the owners were moving forward with using replacement players, professional baseball’s future was up in the air.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against the baseball owners, alleging that they had violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by unilaterally eliminating, before an impasse had been reached in bargaining negotiations, salary arbitration for certain reserve players, competitive bargaining for certain free agents, and the anti-collusion provision of the collective bargaining agreement which was subject to ongoing negotiations.

The NLRB asked Judge Sotomayor to issue an injunction to prevent the owners from moving forward with their replacement players plan, to keep the former collective bargaining agreement (which the players had agreed to honor) in effect, and to require the players and owners to continue to bargain in good faith toward a new agreement.

Finding that the issues in question were mandatory, instead of permissive, subjects of bargaining and that there was reasonable cause to believe that the owners were guilty of an unfair labor practice under the NLRA, Sotomayor granted an injunction. The injunction restored the terms and conditions of the former collective bargaining agreement, prevented the owners’ attempt to start a new baseball season with replacement players, and required the owners and players to continue to bargain in good faith for a new agreement.

In granting the injunction, Sotomayor rejected the owners’ argument that their right to bargain collectively would be impugned if the NLRB got its way. Rather, said Sotomayor, the statutory right to join collective bargaining units belongs to employees, not employers.

The owners asked the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to stay Judge Sotomayor’s injunction. The Second Circuit refused. Thus, the slightly abbreviated 1995 season was played under the previously existing collective bargaining agreement with regular players, not replacement players.

Perhaps of some significance in this district court opinion, Judge Sotomayor focused not only on the players and owners in deciding to issue an injunction. She also took into account the status of the public — the fans. Some may argue that this decision supports the argument that she lets her background have too much influence on her decisions (she is a big baseball fan, after all). Others may argue that it’s impossible to decide a case like this without taking into account the practical impact of a decision on everyone affected by it.

Gorwin v. Local 282, I.B.T and Testwell Craig Laboratories, Inc., 838 F. Supp. 116 (SDNY 1993)
A union employee was fired, and two arbitrations ensued with differing results. The employee filed suit in New York state court, claiming that both his employer and his union were guilty of a wrongful discharge. The employer and union were successful in having the case transferred to federal district court.

The union and employer argued that the employee’s lawsuit had been filed too late and was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Sotomayor ruled that the applicable six month federal statute of limitations was tolled (or suspended), because the employee had filed a timely claim in New York state court.

The union and the employer also argued that because of defects in the employee’s pleadings and other reasons, they were entitled to have the case dismissed via summary judgment. Noting that the employee was representing himself and that pleadings are to be liberally construed, Sotomayor refused to grant the motion for summary judgment, finding that there were genuine issues of fact allowing the case to proceed to trial.

Heaning v. NYNEX-New York, 945 F. Supp. 640 (SDNY 1996)
An employee filed suit against his employer in state court, claiming that he was fired without just cause in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. The employee also contended that his employer had violated a duty to keep confidential his personnel files. The case was transferred to federal district court.

Judge Sotomayor ruled that the Labor Management Relations Act preempted (superseded) the employee’s state law claims that he attempted to assert in this case. She also found that the employee’s attempt to assert a Section 1983 claim involving the disclosure of his personnel files failed because the employer’s conduct in providing authorities with the employee’s records didn’t constitute joint action with the state. Sotomayor ruled for the employer in all respects and dismissed the case.

Summary of Sotomayor’s decisions on traditional labor law cases
It’s probably fair to argue that Judge Sotomayor’s overall approach to traditional labor cases seems a bit employee-friendly, particularly in the first two cases discussed above. She did, however, decide in favor of the employer in the third case. Of most significance, she appears to have a good handle on the basics of labor law.

The final post on Sotomayor’s district court decisions will involve employer liability to third parties.