MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The plaintiff commenced this action on November 12, 2019 alleging claims under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), and New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”). (ECF No. 1.) The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on April 10, 2020 (ECF No. 12), and the Honorable Eric N. Vitaliano referred the motion to the Honorable Steven Tiscione for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).1 Judge Tiscione issued a thoughtful R&R on March 26, 2021, recommending that the Court grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and decline to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. (ECF No. 15.) The plaintiff filed a timely objection on April 1, 2021. (ECF No. 17.) The defendant replied on April 16, 2021. (ECF No. 18.) For the reasons set forth below, I adopt the R&R in its entirety. BACKGROUND2 The plaintiff was a teacher at a New York Catholic school until August of 2018. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) The defendant, a labor organization with exclusive bargaining authority for “thousands of teachers and other professionals employed at Roman Catholic elementary and high schools,” represented the plaintiff in a collective bargaining agreement. (Id. at 6.) Through the Association of Catholic Schools, the plaintiff’s school was party to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with the defendant. (ECF No. 12-2.) As relevant here, the CBA included anti-discrimination provisions protecting teachers from discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and disability, among other characteristics. (ECF No. 1 at
14-15.) The CBA also provided for a grievance procedure whereby a formal hearing would be held within twenty days of a request, or as soon as a hearing officer was available. (Id. at 45.) In July and August of 2018, the plaintiff’s employer sent him two letters of suspension with intent to discharge. (ECF No. 1 at 8.) The plaintiff contacted the defendant and claimed that his employer was retaliating against him for complaining about sex, race, and age discrimination against himself and race discrimination against a student. (Id. at 16.) On September 5, 2018, the defendant notified the plaintiff’s employer that it was initiating formal grievance procedures on his behalf. (Id. at 9.) However, the defendant did not pursue a discrimination claim, believing that the arbitrator would be willing to hear only contractual claims, not federal or state discrimination claims. (Id. at
