12

‐ 4198

‐ cv

MTA Bus Non

‐ Union Employees, et al. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT

. C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER

FILED ON OR AFTER J ANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F EDERAL R ULE OF A PPELLATE

P ROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’ S L OCAL R ULE 32.1.1. W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT

, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F EDERAL A PPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE ( WITH THE NOTATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL

.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 1

Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 2

Square, in the City of New York, on the 8 th day of October, two thousand thirteen. 3

4

PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, Jr., 5

PIERRE N. LEVAL, 6

RICHARD C. WESLEY, 7

Circuit Judges

. 8

9

10

11

MTA BUS NON

‐ UNION EMPLOYEES, ET AL., 12

13

Plaintiffs

‐ Appellants

, 14

15

‐ v.

‐ 12

‐ 4198

‐ cv 16

17

MTA NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT, 18

19

Defendant

, 20

21

22METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, MTA BUS COMPANY, 1

2

Defendants

‐ Appellees

. * 3

4

5

FOR APPELLANTS: JOHN A. CIRANDO (Bradley E. Keem, Elizabeth deV. 6

Moeller, on the brief ) Dealy Silberstein & Braverman, 7

LLP, Syracuse, NY. 8

9

FOR APPELLEES: HELEN FROMM (Mary Fisher Bernet, Peter Sistrom, on 10

the brief ) Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New 11

York, NY. 12

13

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of 14

New York (Rakoff, J. ). 15

16

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 17

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District 18

Court for the Southern District of New York is AFFIRMED

. 19

In this appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 20

District of New York (Rakoff, J. ), we conclude, first, that the court was within its 21

discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Appellants’ state law claims. 22

We also affirm the District Court’s grant of judgment to the defendants on 23

Appellants’ state law claims based on their Offer Letter and pension plan. 24

Appellants argue that when the MTA granted increases in contributions and 25

* We direct the Clerk of the Court to amend the official caption as noted.

2benefits to the workers covered by its collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) 1

with the Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100 (“Local 100 ʺ ), it was 2

compelled by the terms of Article 16 of the Metropolitan Transportation 3

Authority Defined Benefits Plan (the “Plan”) to grant them corresponding 4

increases in both contributions and benefits. Construing the Plan as denying any 5

linkage between Appellants’ benefits and benefits accorded under Local 100 ʹ s 6

CBA would leave the MTA free, almost at will, to wipe out the economic value to 7

Appellants of their Plan. Simply by agreeing with Local 100 to an economically 8

neutral increase in both contributions and benefits, the MTA could then impose 9

on Appellants increased contributions, without corresponding increased benefits. 10

But that is not the case here. After the Impasse Award raised Local 100 ʹ s 11

contributions and benefits, the MTA did not increase Appellants’ contributions 12

without a corresponding increase to benefits. To the contrary, the MTA left 13

Appellants’ contributions and benefits unchanged, waiving its right to impose 14

increased contributions. Therefore, even if Appellants are correct that the Plan 15

prohibits the MTA from raising contributions in line with Local 100 ʹ s CBA 16

without a corresponding change to benefits, the Plan does not compel defendants 17

to increase Appellants’ benefits having foregone any increase to contributions. 18

3We affirm the judgment of the District Court. 1

FOR THE COURT: 2

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 3

4

5

4