From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dispigno v. Shuttle, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Feb 5, 2002
No. 00-CV-576 (JBW) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2002)

Opinion

No. 00-CV-576 (JBW)

February 5, 2002


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Both defendants move for summary judgment in this old and festering dispute by workers replaced after an outside contractor took over their jobs, and following a series of corporate changes of ownership and operation of the aircraft shuttle between New York and Washington, D.C. Plaintiffs are highly unlikely to succeed at trial. Nevertheless, they are entitled to a jury trial since, conceivably, issues of credibility and interpretation may be resolved in their favor by a jury, the trial judge and an appellate panel.

On these motions all factual inferences must be draw favor of the non-moving party. See e.g., Capital Mgmt. Inc. v. Lane Capital Mgmt. Inc., 192 F.3d 337, 343 (2d Cir. 1999); Macfarlane v. Canadian Pacific railway Company, Aug. Term 2001 slip sheet 285 (2d Cir. Jan 2, 2002).

It appears unlikely that the airway ever promised its employees, through any manual or otherwise, to reinstate plaintiffs after they were furloughed. Yet, recent cases of the court of appeals have taken a broad view of such promises to favor employees, creating an issue of fact. See Devlin v. Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 274 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2001) (interpretation of ERISA plan and promissory estoppel); Abbruscato v. Alicea, 274 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2001) (contractual promise based upon plan documents, letters and informed communications).

A union's decision not to favor some of its members over others is entitled to great deference. See e.g., Spellacy v. Airline Pilots Association-International, 156 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 1998). The Spellacy motion for judgment by the union followed a jury trial.

Affidavits of union officials submitted on this motion seem quite compelling that the Spellacy test of reasonable representation was met. Nevertheless, the jury conceivably could disbelieve all the union's evidence.

The fair representation issue appears not yet to have been adjudicated. Res judicata does not appear to apply.

Plaintiffs' motion to invoke the Railway Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. is denied. The fair representation issue, given the factual circumstances, is within this court's jurisdiction. A motion to remand to the National Mediation Board is not appropriate.

The motions for summary judgment are denied. An interlocutory appeal would not be appropriate. The parties will arrange for a prompt pretrial conference to arrange for trial. No costs or disbursements are granted on this motion.


Summaries of

Dispigno v. Shuttle, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Feb 5, 2002
No. 00-CV-576 (JBW) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2002)
Case details for

Dispigno v. Shuttle, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DOMINICK DISPIGNO, et al., Plaintiffs v. SHUTTLE, INC., USAIRWAYS, INC.…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Feb 5, 2002

Citations

No. 00-CV-576 (JBW) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2002)