CAMDEN, NJ – A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by NJ Transit employee Sino Wa Johnson against New Jersey Transit Bus Operations and her union, ruling that the transit agency is a political subdivision of the state and therefore exempt from the federal labor laws Johnson invoked.
In a memorandum opinion and order issued January 16, U.S. District Judge Karen M. Williams of the District of New Jersey granted motions to dismiss filed by NJ Transit and the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 880, finding the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
Johnson, who filed her complaint in 2025, alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), and New Jersey’s Employer-Employee Relations Act (EERA). She argued that NJ Transit was her employer under the federal labor statutes and that ATU Local 880 had failed to properly represent her interests.
Judge Williams disagreed, holding that NJ Transit’s status as “an instrumentality of the State” placed it outside the reach of both the NLRA and the LMRA. “An employer within the meaning of the Act cannot be a State or a political subdivision of the State,” the court wrote, citing long-standing precedent.
Because NJ Transit was created directly by state statute and governed by a board largely appointed by the governor and other state officials, Williams concluded it is a political subdivision performing “public and essential governmental functions.” As a result, its employees are not “employees” as defined by the federal acts, and the union representing them is not a “labor organization” covered by those laws.
The judge referenced a 2023 Third Circuit ruling in Pue v. New Jersey Transit Corp., which reached the same conclusion, reaffirming that NJ Transit cannot be sued under the LMRA. “Since Defendant NJT is a political subdivision of New Jersey, it is not an employer within the definition of the LMRA,” Williams wrote. “Therefore, Defendant NJT’s employees are not employees within the definition of the LMRA, and Defendant ATU cannot be considered a labor organization under the LMRA.”
Johnson also asserted a state claim under New Jersey’s Employer-Employee Relations Act, which governs public-sector labor disputes. However, the court ruled it lacked supplemental jurisdiction to hear that claim once the federal causes of action were dismissed. Citing established precedent, Williams wrote that without an underlying federal question, the district court “cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.”
Both NJ Transit and the union argued that the matter properly belongs before the state’s Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC), which has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes under the EERA. The court declined to address that argument in depth, finding it unnecessary given the lack of jurisdiction.
The judge dismissed the entire case without prejudice, meaning Johnson could potentially refile her state-law claim in an appropriate forum, but she cannot pursue her federal claims in U.S. District Court. Her motion to stay the proceedings was denied as moot.
NJ Transit, a state-operated transportation agency created in 1979, has long been treated by the courts as an arm of the state government. That designation grants it certain immunities under federal law and limits the ability of employees to bring labor-related claims in federal court.
The ruling reinforces a consistent line of federal decisions holding that public-sector transit authorities like NJ Transit fall outside the scope of the National Labor Relations Act and related statutes designed for private employers.
Judge Williams’ decision effectively ends Johnson’s federal case against NJ Transit and ATU Local 880, underscoring the jurisdictional barrier that shields the state-run transit agency from private-sector labor claims.
