CompFox AI Summary
Plaintiffs Samuel Padilla and Dominic Amato were terminated in a 2015 reduction in force from Yeshiva University’s medical school following its merger with Montefiore. They filed claims against Yeshiva for breach of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) regarding lay-off and seniority provisions, and against their union, 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, for breach of its duty of fair representation. Plaintiffs also alleged retaliation under the FMLA and disability discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants moved to dismiss all claims, and plaintiffs cross-moved to amend their complaint. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the common law breach of contract claims preempted by the LMRA and the hybrid LMRA claims dismissible due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust internal union procedures or plausibly allege breach of duty. The court also found the retaliation and discrimination claims implausible due to lack of factual support. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend was denied as futile.
Padilla v. Yeshiva University is a workers' compensation case decided in District Court, S.D. New York. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in District Court, S.D. New York.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Plaintiffs Samuel Padilla and Dominic Amato were terminated in a 2015 reduction in force from Yeshiva University’s medical school following its merger with Montefiore. They filed claims against Yeshiva for breach of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) regarding lay-off and seniority provisions, and against their union, 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, for breach of its duty of fair representation. Plaintiffs also alleged retaliation under the FMLA and disability discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants moved to dismiss all claims, and plaintiffs cross-moved to amend their complaint. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the common law breach of contract claims preempted by the LMRA and the hybrid LMRA claims dismissible due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust internal union procedures or plausibly allege breach of duty. The court also found the retaliation and discrimination claims implausible due to lack of factual support. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend was denied as futile.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.