McAllister v. Teamsters Local 917, Quick Park

• Decision Date: 02 September 2015
• Docket Number: 13-CV-6618 (RLE),13-CV-5772 (RLE)
• Parties: MORRIS MCALLISTER, Plaintiff, v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 917, QUICK PARK, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

MORRIS MCALLISTER, Plaintiff, v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 917, QUICK PARK, Defendants.

13-CV-5772 (RLE)

13-CV-6618 (RLE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 2, 2015

OPINION & ORDER

RONALD L. ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge:

Morris McAllister commenced two separate actions against Teamsters Local 917 ("Local 917") (13-CV-5772) and Quick Park (13-CV-6618), in August of 2013. In April 2014, the Parties in both cases consented to proceed before the undersigned pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 636(c). McAllister alleges that Defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and New York State Human Rights Law ("NYHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290-297, by terminating him because of his race and his age. (13-CV-5772, Doc. No. 5; 13-CV-6618, Doc. No. 5)

On December 5, 2014, Defendants filed separate Motions for Summary Judgment. (13-CV-5772, Doc. No. 30; 13-CV-6618, Doc. No. 30) On January 6, 2015, McAllister filed a letter with the Court stating that he was "not satisfied" with the Defendants' motions, re-raising previously addressed discovery issues, and asking that the case be "dismissed and/or moved to trial." (13-CV-5772, Doc. No. 36; 13-CV-6618, Doc. No. 38) This letter was not responsive to Defendants' motions. As McAllister is a pro se litigant, the Court allowed him to submit a supplemental response to Local 917's and Quick Park's Motions for Summary Judgment byMarch 4, 2014. (13-CV-5772, Doc. No. 40; 13-CV-6618, Doc. No. 43) McAllister did not file opposition papers.

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

In or around 2005, McAllister was hired as a Porter by Imperial Parking (US), LLC ("Imperial"). (13-CV-6618, Doc. No. 31, Ex. A) On September 1, 2012, Imperial Parking's management contract expired and Quick Park was retained to manage Imperial's parking garages. (13-CV-6618, Doc. No. 32 at 1.) When Quick Park was retained it initially hired all of the employees that were previously employed by Imperial, including porters like McAllister who were responsible for cleaning the garages. (Id.) Quick Park eventually determined that the porter position was unnecessary and decided to require its parking attendants to clean the garages when they were not parking cars instead of employing porters. (Id.) As a result, on October 7, 2015, Quick Park laid off its only two porters: McAllister and another individual named Oscar Guerrero. (Id; Doc. No. 32, Ex. A)

On October 8, 2012, McAllister contacted his union, Local 917, and informed them of the layoffs. (13-CV-5772, Doc. No. 31, Ex. 1 at 2) The secretary-treasurer of Local 917, David Perez, told McAllister he would investigate the layoffs and get back to him. (Id.) Perez contacted Lincoln Llopiz, Quick Park's Vice President of Operations, and found out that the porter position had been eliminated because Quick Park did not have the porter classification at any of its garages. Perez and Llopiz came to the agreement that Local 917 would consent to Quick Park using parking attendants to clean the garages as they did at other locations, but that if Quick Park changed its practice and hired porters in the future, the porters would have to be included in thebargaining unit. (Id.) On October 18, 2012, Perez called McAllister and informed him that Quick Park had eliminated the porter position. (Id.)

A. NLRB Charges

On November 19, 2012, McAllister filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"), alleging that Local 917 had unlawfully refused to process his grievance against Quick Park in violation of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). (13-CV-5772, Doc. No. 31, Ex. 4) On February 28, 2013, the NLRB dismissed the charge because the "evidence fail[ed] to establish that the Union violated the Act as alleged or in any other manner encompassed by the charge." (13-CV-5772, Doc. No. 31, Ex. 5)

On April 8, 2013, McAllister filed a second charge with the NLRB alleging that Local 917 had "failed and refused to represent [McAllister] in his grievance concerning his layoff by Quick Park and reassignment of his job responsibilities to three other employees, for arbitrary, discriminatory and capricious reasons." (13-CV-5772, Doc. No. 31, Ex. 7) On June 27, 2013, the NLRB dismissed the charge because the "evidence fail[ed] to establish that the Union violated the Act." (13-CV-5772, Doc. No. 31, Ex. 8) The NLRB further stated that "the Union agreed that, pursuant to the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement, the Employer could eliminate [the porter] position and transfer the work" and that Local 917 had "attempted to but was unsuccessful in obtaining another position for [McAllister] at that location." (Id.)

B. NYDHR Charges

On March 5, 3013, McAllister filed a Verified Complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights ("NYDHR") against Quick Park alleging that: 1) Quick Park terminated his employment in violation of NYHRL and Title VII because he had "opposed discrimination,;" 2) "others with less seniority" should have been laid off before him; and 3) theemployees who were not terminated had been promoted to his former position. (13-CV-6618, Doc. No. 31, Ex. A.) That same day, McAllister filed a Verified Complaint with NYDHR against Local 917 alleging that the union had retaliated against him for opposing discrimination and had "failed to give [him] an arbitration hearing, failed to give [him] a lay off notice, or do anything for [him]" in violation of NYHRL and Title VII (13-CV-5772, Doc. No. 31, Ex. 9)

On April 11, 2013, McAllister filed an Amended Complaint against Quick Park alleging that he was terminated because he had opposed discrimination and because of his age (fifty-two), and that "three younger employees" (all in their forties) were doing his job. (13-CV-6618, Doc. No. 31, Ex. A.) He claimed violations of NYHRL and Title VII. (Id.) That same day, McAllister filed an Amended Complaint against Local 917 alleging that the union had retaliated against him for opposing discrimination and had failed to represent him because of his race in violation of Title VII and NYHRL. (13-CV-5772, Doc. No. 31, Ex. 10)

After conducting an investigation, the NYDHR dismissed McAllister's Amended Complaint against Quick Park on June 28, 2013. (13-CV-6618, Doc. No. 31, Ex. 4) The investigation revealed that all three of the "younger" employees McAllister referenced in his complaint were in fact older than McAllister. (Id.) The investigator interviewed the parking attendant who had replaced McAllister and confirmed that the porter position had been eliminated and that the parking attendant was in fact older than Mr. McAllister. (Id.) The investigator found that McAllister "did not oppose discrimination; he opposed the fact that less senior union members were retained over him. Therefore, [McAllister] did not engage in protected activity prior to his separation from [Quick Park]." (Id. at 2.) The NYDHR concluded that "the investigation did not reveal sufficient evidence to establish and inference of discrimination based on age or retaliation." (Id.)

That same day, the NYDHR dismissed McAllister's Amended Complaint against Local 917. (13-CV-5772, Doc. No. 31, Ex. 11) The division's investigation revealed that a current sixty-one year old current employee of Quick Park and union member had been previously terminated, but was able to get rehired with help from Local 917. (Id.) The investigation further revealed that McAllister did not complain to Local 917 until after he was terminated and thus, he had not engaged in any protected activity prior to his termination. (Id.) The NYDHR concluded that "the investigation did not reveal sufficient evidence to establish an inference of discrimination based on Age and Retaliation." (Id.)

C. EEOC Charges

On March 5, 2013, simultaneous with his NYDHR filings, McAllister filed Charges of Employment Discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against both Local 917 and Quick Park. (13-CV-6618, Doc. No. 31, Ex. B) These charges relied upon the allegations listed in McAllister's NYDHR Complaints. (Id.) After the NYDHR dismissed McAllister's complainl3-CV-5772, the EEOC adopted the NYDHR's findings and dismissed his claims as well. (Id., Ex. D-E)

C. Southern District Actions

McAllister commenced an action against Local 917 on August 26, 2013, and filed an Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint (TS)") on October 30, 2013. (13-CV-5772, Doc. Nos. 1, 5) In his Amended Complaint (TS), McAllister alleges that Quick Park violated Title VII and NYHRL by terminating him because of his race (black) and age (fifty-two). (Id.) He commenced an action against Quick Park on September 17, 2013, and filed an Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint (QP)") on December 2, 2013. (13-CV-6618, Doc. Nos. 2, 5) In his Amended Complaint (QP), McAllister alleges that Local 917 violated Title VII and theADEA by retaliating against him and failing to promote him because of his race and age. (Id.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Law

1. Summary Judgment Motions

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court shall grant a motion for summary judgment if it determines that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of "informing the district court of the basis for its motion" and identifying the matter that "it believes demonstrate[s] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once the movant makes a properly supported motion, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing that there is genuine issue...