TWU argues that the language that says the agreement did not constitute an admission of violation of „all the laws of Confederation, State or New York City,“ Whalen Decl., Ex. A 1 means that the applicant intended to waive all claims that could have been invoked under those statutes. See TWU Mm. from right to 9. This argument is contrary to logic. This language clearly refers to the fact that there is no admission of misconduct by the TWU; it says nothing about the extent of a waiver on the part of the applicant. TWU submits that this e-mail was sent at the beginning of the transaction negotiations between the parties and that at the end of the negotiation process (one month later), the parties agreed to pay both the costs of EEOC and PERB. See TWU Reply Mem. 15-year-old law.
However, the TWU does not cite part of the protocol to support this assertion and the court therefore ignored it. In any event, assuming that TWU`s recitation of facts is accurate, one might have expected a much more explicit release if the parties intended to resolve both the EEOC claim and the D PERB claim in the same settlement agreement. Finally, TWU argues that the applicant did not exhaust its appeals under the EU Constitution before taking this case, since it did not appeal the TWU`s decision. See TWU Reply Mem. right to 4. The TWU believes that a plaintiff must exhaust a union`s internal appeal procedures before it can sue the union for non-representation. See id. (citing DelCostello v. Int`l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 163-64 (1983)). This argument is legally wrong.
A worker suing an employer under the National Labor Relations Act („NLRA“) for breach of a collective agreement must „exhaust all complaints or arbitration measures under this collective agreement“ before taking legal action. Konig v. New York Tel. Co., 785 F.2d 31, 33-34 (2d Cir. 1986); See also Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 389 (2d Cir. 2015). However, such a duty does not apply to actions brought against unions for breach of the duty of fair representation under Title VII. See Cooper, 106 F. Supp. 2d to 499.
On the contrary, „Title VII gives an independent legal right to sue for discrimination“ and therefore „a member of the union is not required to bring separate contractual or legal remedies“ before being able to take legal action under that law. In July 2016, the applicant settled her indictment. See Defs. 56.1 pl. 56.1 stmt. Whalen Decl., Ex. A. The applicant entered into a transaction agreement in which, first, the transaction „must not be construed as an admission or constitutes an admission“ that TWU violated „all the laws of the State, state or The City of New York,“ Whalen Decl., ex. A 1; second, the applicant agreed to „end the immediate charge with prejudice and withdraw all claims that were filed or could have been relied upon by the facts relied upon in the indictment, and thirdly, that the TWU was prepared, in exchange for a transaction, to expedite a complaint that the applicant had previously lodged with the Union`s Board of Directors.