A New York appellate court has dismissed claims against the Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union in a workplace discrimination case involving employees of the City University of New York (CUNY). The ruling, issued on July 15, 2026, affects how employees can seek recourse against unions for alleged discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.
The case, Lax v. City University of N.Y., stems from allegations made by a group of employees at Kingsborough Community College, who claimed they faced discrimination based on their religion. The court's decision has significant implications for the responsibilities of unions in protecting their members from workplace discrimination.
Background
The plaintiffs in this case, led by Jeffrey Lax, filed a lawsuit against CUNY, several individual coworkers, and the PSC union, which represents them as employees. They accused the defendants of creating a hostile work environment and retaliating against them for their religious beliefs. The lawsuit was initiated in February 2021, and the plaintiffs sought damages for their claims.
Initially, the PSC and its president, Barbara Bowen, moved to dismiss the claims against them, arguing that unions cannot be held liable for hostile work environment claims, which they asserted can only be made against employers. The Supreme Court of Kings County denied their motion in August 2023, prompting the union to appeal the decision.
The Ruling
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reversed the lower court's decision, granting the PSC's motion to dismiss the claims against them. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims against the union. The judges noted, “the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the motion of the union defendants which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the first and third causes of action, alleging hostile work environment, insofar as asserted against them.”
The court emphasized that unions have no affirmative duty to prevent harassment or discrimination within the workplace unless they are acting in a representational capacity. The judges stated that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the union representatives were responsible for the alleged discriminatory acts or that these acts were related to union activities.
Impact
This ruling clarifies the legal responsibilities of unions regarding workplace discrimination claims. It establishes that unions can only be held liable for discrimination if they are directly involved in the actions that create a hostile work environment or if they breach their duty of fair representation. The decision underscores the importance of demonstrating a direct link between the union's actions and the alleged discrimination.
The outcome of this case may discourage employees from pursuing claims against unions for workplace discrimination unless they can provide clear evidence of the union's involvement in the alleged misconduct. It also highlights the need for employees to understand the limitations of union protections in discrimination cases.
What's Next
While the court's decision effectively dismisses the claims against the PSC, it is unclear whether the plaintiffs will seek further legal recourse or appeal the ruling to a higher court. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or future actions by the plaintiffs.