08- 354 2-c v Sal uja v. Lo cal 11 99 Uni ted He alt hca re



### UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS FO R TH E SEC O N D C IRC U IT SU MM ARY ORDER RULING S B Y SUM M ARY O RDER D O NO T HAVE PRECEDENTI AL EFFECT. CI TATION TO A S UM M ARY O RDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2 00 7, IS PERM ITTED AN D IS G OV ERNED B Y FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDUR

E 32. 1 AND THI S COURT’S LO CAL RU LE 32. 1.1 . W HEN C ITING A S UM M ARY O RDER I N A DOCUMENT FILED WITH TH IS COUR T, A PARTY M UST CITE EI THER TH E FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRON IC DA TABAS E ( W ITH TH E NOTA TION “SUM M ARY O RDER”). A PARTY CI TING A SUM M ARY ORDER M UST SERV E A CO PY OF IT ON ANY PART Y NO T REPRESENTED BY COU NSEL. Ata s ta te d t e r m of t he Uni te d St at e s C our t o f Appe als forth e Se c ond C ir c uit , he ld at the Daniel P atric k Moynih an United S tate s Courthouse, 500 P earl Str eet , in the City of Ne w Yo r k, o n t he 29 dayof Ja nuar y, two th ous and t e n. th PRES ENT: RA L PH K . WI NT ER, J OHN M. WAL KER, J r., ROSEMARY S. P OOL ER,

Circuit Judges
.

__________________________________________ Paul Saluja, Plaintif

f-Appellant , v. 08-3542-c v L ocal 1199 United H ealthca re Worker s East, SEIU, No rt h Sh or e L on gI sla

nd Jew ish He a lthSy ste m, Defendants-A

ppellees
.

__________________________________________ FOR APPEL L ANT: Paul Saluja, pro s e , New H y de Park, N ew Yor k. FOR APPEL L EE L OCAL1199: Richard Dor n, L evy Ratner, P.C., New Y ork, Ne w York. FOR APPEL L EE NORTH SHORE L ONG I SL AND JEW I SH HEAL TH SYSTEM: Michae l J oseph Volpe a nd Shaffin Abdul Datoo, Vena ble L L P, New Yor

k, New Y ork.2

Appea l from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of New Y ork (F euer stein, J. ) UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, A ND DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF F IRM ED
. Appellant Paul Saluja, pr o s e , a pp e a ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt i n favor of L ocal 1199 United H ealthca re Worker s East, SEIU (“ the Union”) and Nor th Shore L ong I sland J ewish He alth Sy stem (“the H ospital”), dismissing Saluja’s c omplaint. Saluja alleg es that afte r he w as terminate d from his position as a medica l technolog ist with t he Hospital, the Union brea ched its duty

of fa ir repr esentation to him and the Hospital bre ache d its collective bar g aining ag ree ment with the Union. We assume the par ties’ familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts, the pr oc e dura l hi sto ry

of the c a se , a

nd the iss ue s o n a

pp e a l. We r e vie w a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r gra

nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt de novo and ask whether the district court prope rly conclude d that there was no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the moving pa

rty was e ntitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. Se e Mi lle r v . W

olp off & Abramson, L.L.P. , 321 F.3d 292, 300 ( 2d Cir. 2003). In deter mining whe ther ther e ar e g enuine iss ue s o f m ate ri a l f

a c t, w e are “ re qu ir e d to re so lve a ll ambi g uit ie s a nd dr aw a ll p e rm iss ibl e fac tual infere nces in fa

vor of the pa

rty ag ainst whom summary

judgme nt is sought.” Terry v. As hc ro ft , 336 F.3d 128, 137 ( 2d Cir. 2003) (interna l quotation marks omitted). Howeve r, “conc lusory

statements or mer e alleg ations [are] not sufficient to defe at a summary judgme nt motion.” Da v is v . S

tate of N e w York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 ( 2d Cir. 2002). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

c or re c tly ide nti fi e d Sa luj a ’s c la im a s a “ hy br id S e c tio n 3 01 /f

a ir repr esentation claim,” re fer encingSection 301(a) of the L abor Relations Manag ement Ac t, 293

U.S.C. § 185(a), whic h g overns Saluja’ s claim that the Hospital bre ache d the collec tive barg ainingag ree ment; the Union’s duty of fa ir repr esentation is i mplied under the N ational L abor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. See Carrion v. Enterprise Ass’n, Metal Trades Branch Local Union 638 , 227 F.3d 29, 33 ( 2d Cir. 2000). An employ ee ma y sue either

his employ er or the Union, or both, in a hy brid Section 301/fair r epre sentation claim, but to preva il, the employ ee “‘must not only

show that [his ] di schar g e wa s contrar y to the contra ct, but must also carr y the burden of demonstratingbrea ch of duty by the Union.’” Id
. (qu o t i n g DelCostello v. Int’l Broth e rh oo d o

f Te am ste rs , 462 U.S. 151, 165 (1983)). The “indispensable pr edicate for suc h an action is . . . a de monstration that the Union brea ched its duty of fa ir repr esentation.” United Pa rc e l Se rv ic e . I

nc . v . M itc he ll , 451 U.S. 56, 62 (1981), overruled on othe r grounds by De lCo ste llo , 462 U.S. 151. A union brea ches its duty of fa ir repr esentation only if it acts in a
manner that is “arbitra

ry , discriminatory , or in bad fa ith.” Vaca v . Sipes , 386 U.S. 171, 190 (1 96 7) ; see also W

hite v. W hite Rose Food, a Div. of DiGeorgio Corp., 237 F.3d 174, 179 ( 2d Cir. 2001). I f an e mploy ee e stablishes that the union acte d in such a manne r, he must then prove
a ca usal conne ction betwee n the union’s conduc t and his injuries. Se e W hite , 237 F.3d at 179. Her e, Saluja fa iled to establish that the Union brea ched its duty of fa ir repr esentation, as he pr ov ide d o nly

c on c lus or

y a lle g atio ns tha

t th e Un ion

did no t a de qu ate ly

inv e sti g ate his g rieva nces or acte d arbitra

rily in choosing not to pursue ar bitration when his g rieva

nces w ere denied. Such c onclusory

alleg ations are insufficient to withstand summary judgme nt. Se e Da v is , 3 1 6 F
. 3 d at1 0 0
. B e c a

u s e S a l u j a f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s hth atth e U n i o n ’ s c o n d u c tw a s ar

b i tr ar y, discriminatory , or in bad fa ith, the district court appropr iately did not consider whe ther the Union’s conduc t cause d his injuries, or whether the Hospital brea ched the collective ba rg aining4

ag ree ment. See Mi tc he ll , 451 U.S. at 62. F o r th e f o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , th e j u d g m e n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y AF F IRM ED
. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk