Charter Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jewett
| Decision Date | 16 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 5:21-cv-959 (BKS/ML) |
| Citation | 573 F.Supp.3d 742 |
| Parties | CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. Eric JEWETT, Respondent, and New York State Division of Human Rights, Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
For Petitioner: Daniel P. Jaffe, Husch Blackwell LLP, 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10165, Randall S. Thompson, Husch Blackwell LLP, 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600, St. Louis, MO 63105.
Respondent pro se, Eric Jewett, Watertown, NY 13601.
For Intervenor: Erin Sobkowski, New York State Division of Human Rights, Office of General Counsel, 65 Court Street, Suite 506, Buffalo, NY 14202, Robert A. Goldstein, New York State Division of Human Rights, 1 Fordham Plaza, 4th Floor, Bronx, NY 10458.
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter"), seeks to compel its former employee, Respondent Eric Jewett, to arbitrate his employment discrimination claims and enjoin him from proceeding before the New York State Division of Human Rights ("NYSDHR" or "Division"). (See generally Dkt. No. 1 ()). Presently before the Court are Charter's motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, (Dkt. Nos. 2–5), enjoining Jewett from "pursuing an October 25, 2021 hearing on the merits of his employment-related claims against Charter, now pending before the [NYSDHR], in any forum outside of arbitration under the Arbitration Agreement," (Dkt. No. 2, at 1; Dkt. Nos. 3–5).
The NYSDHR moved to intervene in this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 on the ground that "the public's interest in enforcement of the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. L., Section 290 et seq. , cannot be fully represented or protected by respondent Eric Jewett," and the Court granted that motion. (Dkt. No. 18, at 2; Dkt. No. 21 ()). The NYSDHR opposes Charter's motions, (Dkt. Nos. 28–30). On October 6, 2021, the Court held a hearing, via videoconference, on the motions. Jewett appeared at the hearing, but has not taken a position on the pending motions.
On October 14, 2021, the Court issued a Text Order denying Charter's motion for a preliminary injunction and advising that a decision would follow. (Dkt. No. 35). This Memorandum-Decision and Order explains the basis for that Text Order.
II. FACTS1
Jewett worked as a sales representative for Charter, a telecommunications company that provides video, internet, and telephone services to business and residential customers, from March 1, 2019 to April 17, 2019. (Dkt. No. 1-4, at ¶ 4). According to the verified complaint filed with the NYSDHR, Jewett alleges that his supervisor sexually harassed him while they were in his supervisor's vehicle making sales calls and again at the office. (Dkt. No. 28-1, at 5). When Jewett contacted human resources, reported the harassment, and stated that he "couldn't handle it anymore working under that supervisor," human resources advised that his claim would be investigated and offered Jewett a position working under "new management." (Id. ). Jewett responded that the position was "an hour drive from [his] residence" and asked why he "should ... have to leave [his] area when [he] did nothing wrong?" (Id. ). When Jewett refused to return to work under the supervisor who had harassed him, Charter advised that he "would be terminated" if he did not return to work. (Id. ). Jewett's employment was terminated on April 17, 2019. (Id. at 2).
During his onboarding as a Charter employee, Jewett electronically signed Charter's "Mutual Arbitration Agreement," and agreed to resolve disputes arising out of his employment, including claims of unlawful sexual harassment and retaliation through binding arbitration. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 11; Dkt. No. 1-5, at 15–19). The Arbitration Agreement expressly stated that it did not prevent Jewett from "filing and pursuing" an administrative proceeding before the EEOC "or an equivalent state or local agency." The Agreement, however, stated: "if you choose to pursue the claim, any proceeding on the merits or for damages will be subject to arbitration." (Dkt. No. 1-5, at 16). It provides, in relevant part:
(Id. at 15–19).
On April 23, 2019, Jewett filed a verified complaint with the NYSDHR alleging that he was subjected to sexual harassment during his employment with Charter and that he was terminated in retaliation for complaining about the sexual harassment. (Dkt. No. 1-3, at 9–15). Charter contacted Jewett via letter less than two weeks later "regarding the Charge of Discrimination," reminded Jewett that he was bound by the "Mutual Arbitration Agreement," and advised while the Arbitration Agreement did "not preclude [Jewett's] filing of the instant Charge, any action arising out of the claims made by way of the Charge must go through the arbitration process set forth in the Program." (Dkt. No. 1-6, at 2 (letter dated May 3, 2019)). Charter further advised Jewett that the Arbitration Agreement prohibited him from pursuing his "claims against Charter through a court action" and that they must be resolved through arbitration. (Id. at 2–3).
In a letter dated May 23, 2019, Charter provided a "statement of position" to the NYSDHR regarding the allegations contained in Jewett's Charge of Discrimination. (Dkt. No. 1-7, at 2–7). In addition to disputing Jewett's claims of sexual harassment and retaliation, Charter acknowledged that the Arbitration Agreement allowed Jewett's initial filing with the NYSDHR, but asserted that because his claims fell "within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement," "any proceeding on the merits or for damages is subject to arbitration," and it intended "to fully assert its rights under the Arbitration Agreement." (Id. at 3).
On October 15, 2019, the NYSDHR issued a Determination After Investigation finding that "probable cause exists to believe that [Charter] has engaged in ... the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of," and recommended the matter for public hearing. (Dkt. No. 28-2, at 1).
In a letter dated September 23, 2020, Charter again notified Jewett that "the claims asserted in" the matter pending before the NYSDHR "are subject to mandatory arbitration," and that by entering the Arbitration Agreement, Jewett "waived any right to a public hearing before a NYDHR Administrative Law Judge" and was prohibited from "seek[ing] or accept[ing] any damages, remedies, or other relief ... except through the binding arbitration process set forth in" the Arbitration Agreement. (Dkt. No. 1-8, at 1–2). Charter told Jewett that he "must dismiss [his] NY[S]DHR complaint against Charter." (Id. at 2.). Charter requested that Jewett "notify [Charter's counsel] in writing of whether [he would] voluntarily withdraw [his] complaint filed with the NY[S]DHR" and warned that if he did not, Charter would "proceed with taking the necessary steps to enjoin [him] from proceeding with the NY[S]DHR public hearing [and] compel arbitration." (Id. at 3). There is nothing in the record that suggests that Jewett responded to Charter's letter.
On January 11, 2021, an attorney from the NYSDHR Prosecutions Unit was assigned to Jewett's complaint. (Dkt. No. 28, ¶ 28). On January 22, 2021, the NYSDHR Chief Administrative Law Judge notified the parties, including Jewett, Charter, the NYSDHR Prosecutions Unit,...
To continue reading
Request your trial