Catz v. Precision Glob. Consulting
| Decision Date | 23 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | 19 Civ. 7499 (ER) |
| Parties | CAROLINE CATZ, Plaintiff, v. PRECISION GLOBAL CONSULTING, SELBY JENNINGS a/k/a PHAIDON INTERNATIONAL, and D2 LEGAL TECHNOLOGY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Caroline Catz brings this action pro se against Precision Global Consulting ("PGC"), D2 Legal Technology Ltd. ("D2"), and Phaidon International ("Phaidon"), alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act ("EPA"), the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against each defendant. Before the Court are motions to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-3, submitted by PGC, D2, and Phaidon respectively. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the defendants' motions to compel arbitration and will stay proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration. However, the Court denies Phaidon's and D2's motions to the extent that they seek partial dismissal of the case.
In 2018, D2, a legal consulting firm based in London, England, sought the assistance of Phaidon, a global recruiting and staffing agency, to identify an experienced financial-transactions lawyer for its temporary position of Lead International Swaps and Derivatives Association ("ISDA") Negotiator. Doc. 28 at 5; Doc. 34 at 6. D2 had been enlisted by an investment bank to conduct a review for compliance with banking regulations, and the candidate hired for this position would work out of the investment bank's North Carolina offices. Doc. 35, ¶¶ 1, 2, 4. On March 20, 2018, Phaidon began recruiting Caroline Catz for the position with D2. Doc. 2 at 10-11; Doc. 28 at 6. Catz is a self-described "accomplished, intelligent and articulate 46-year-old professional American woman of Haitian descent." Doc. 2 at 10. Among other undergraduate and advanced degrees, she holds a Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School and is a member of the New York State Bar. Id. According to Catz, Phaidon initially told her that the position would be based in New York.1 Id. at 11.
On March 23, 2018, Catz interviewed with Paul Chymiy, D2's Head of U.S. Operations, at Phaidon's New York office, after which she was offered the position of Lead ISDA Negotiator. Doc. 2 at 11; Doc. 35, ¶ 5. During this interview, Chymiy told Catz that the position was based in Raleigh, North Carolina—not New York—and that it would require her to relocate to Raleigh for the duration of the project, which was expected to take about one year. Doc. 2 at 11. On March 30, 2018, Catz received a "Confirmation of Contract" from Phaidon, which noted that her contract would be assigned to D2, and which provided basic compensation information. Doc. 2 at 12; Doc. 41-5. This one-page document explained that "these details are for [Catz's] information only" and that "a formal contract of employment will be sent to [Catz] by [D2]." Doc. 41-5. Before Catz signed the Confirmation of Contract, she contends that the defendants made her a litany of promises about her employment. Doc. 2 at 12-13. According to Catz, they promised that the role would provide the senior managerial opportunity she was seeking. Id. They promised that she would receive a per diem of ninety dollars per day, seven days a week, inconsideration of the substantial costs of relocating from New York to Raleigh.2 Id. at 13. They promised that she would receive a cash advance to cover her travel expenses and initial hotel expenses in Raleigh. Id. And they promised that she would have at least four weeks to relocate to Raleigh, so that she could wrap up her affairs in New York. Id. Catz signed and returned the Confirmation of Contract on April 2, 2018. Id.; Doc. 41-5. Subsequently, Catz signed an "Agreement in relation to Provision of Services" with D2.3 Doc. 41-7; Doc. 41-8. This agreement, which describes the terms of Catz's independent consultancy for D2, defined D2 as "the Client," Catz as "the Independent Consultant," and PGC as "the Consultant Company." Doc. 41-8.
On April 5, 2018, PGC, "a workforce management platform that employs workers on its clients' behalf and handles the administrative responsibility for those workers," emailed Catz, explaining that it would be her "employer of record." Doc. 28 at 6; Doc. 29, ¶ 7; Doc. 31 at 7, 9; Doc. 32-4. PGC's email included onboarding instructions to access the employment agreement ("Employment Agreement"). Doc. 29-1; Doc. 32-4. The Employment Agreement, which is on PGC letterhead, states that it is "agreed and entered into between Precision Global Consulting, Inc. ("Company") . . . and Caroline Catz ("Employee")." Doc. 29-1 at 2. It states that Catz will provide PGC's "Client" or its "End Client" with professional services, as defined by an accompanying W2 Schedule that "will exist in conjunction with" and, in the instance of contradictory terms, "will supersede" the Employment Agreement. Id. Although theEmployment Agreement does not mention Phaidon or D2 by name, the accompanying W2 Schedule, also on PGC letterhead, explicitly defines Phaidon as PGC's "Client" and D2 as its "End Client." Doc. 29-2. As PGC's end client, D2 would be the main entity receiving Catz's professional services at the investment bank's North Carolina offices. Id.; Doc. 35, ¶ 4. The Employment Agreement and the W2 Schedule provide that Catz's employment with PGC is at-will and that PGC may terminate her employment at any time, for any reason and without notice. Doc. 29-1 at 5; Doc. 29-2 at 3. The Employment Agreement further provides an "Arbitration/Mediation" provision, which states, in relevant part, that:
[a]ny controversy, dispute, or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the employment relationship, or any breach thereof shall first be settled confidentially through good faith negotiation between the disputing parties. If the dispute cannot be settled through good faith negotiation, the parties agree to attempt in good faith to settle the dispute by binding arbitration in accordance with FAA standards as administered by JAMS in the State of New York and County of New York.
Before Catz signed the Employment Agreement, she alleges that, despite the promise that she would have at least four weeks to relocate to Raleigh, the defendants told her she would have to report to Raleigh by April 11, 2018—three weeks earlier than Catz had expected. Doc. 2 at 15. Catz reported to Raleigh by that date, still before signing the Employment Agreement, which she had received on April 5, 2018. Id.; Doc. 32-4. On April 18, 2018, Catz returned signed copies of the Employment Agreement and the W2 Schedule to PGC.4 Doc. 29 at ¶ 10; Doc. 29-1; Doc. 29-2. Catz and PGC were signatories to these documents; Phaidon and D2 were not.
After Catz began working, she alleges that the defendants reneged on the other promises they had made to her before she signed the Employment Agreement. Doc. 2 at 15-17.Specifically, she alleges that they failed to provide her with a cash advance to cover relocation expenses. Id. at 15. She alleges that the defendants reduced her per diem to five days per week, instead of the promised seven days per week, and that, in any event, they failed to pay her the per diem altogether. Id. at 15-17. She alleges that the defendants failed to reimburse her for work-related expenses and that they failed to give her access to the promised databases, training, and support to acquaint her with the job. Id. at 17. She alleges that they relegated her to the role of document reviewer, which did not provide the senior managerial opportunity she was promised. Id.
Catz further alleges that the defendants subjected her to unlawful discriminatory conduct because of her gender and race. Id. at 18. Specifically, Catz alleges that white male employees who performed "comparable or less work" received more favorable compensation and benefits and more frequent training and professional education opportunities than she did. Id. Catz maintains that "[f]emale and African American reviewers were treated—and felt like—second-class citizens, even though most, if not all of them, were more qualified, experienced and proficient at their work" than a particular white male colleague who allegedly received preferential treatment. Id. at 18-19. Catz alleges that she was relegated to the role of document reviewer in retaliation for speaking out about this discriminatory conduct. Id. at 21-22.
Separately, Catz alleges that the defendants failed to maintain accurate records and pay overtime wages to deserving employees. Id. at 22. Catz contends that the defendants knew, or should have known, that she frequently worked more than forty hours per week, but that they failed to compensate her for this time. Id. Further, Catz alleges that the defendants implemented policies and procedures designed to prevent employees from accurately recording their hours and receiving overtime wages. Id. Finally, Catz alleges that, on June 15, 2018, after approximatelytwo months of employment, Phaidon sent her a text message informing her that D2 had terminated her contract without explanation.5 Id. at 21-22.
On December 11, 2018, Catz filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against PGC, D2, and Phaidon. Doc. 28 at 6-7. On March 6, 2019, the EEOC dismissed Catz's charge and issued a Notice of Right to Sue, giving her ninety days from receipt of the Notice to file her complaint against the defendants. Doc. 32-6. On May 28, 2019, before the ninety-day period expired, Catz, PGC, D2, and Phaidon entered into a Tolling Agreement, agreeing to try to resolve the dispute through joint mediation on June 14, 2019. Doc. 32-7. The parties also agreed to toll the ninety-day filing deadline until July 31, 2019. Id. When joint mediation was unsuccessful, the parties agreed to further toll the deadline until ...
To continue reading
Request your trial