Molina v. Harvard Maint.

• Decision Date: 11 November 2021
• Docket Number: 20 Civ. 10993 (LGS)
• Parties: IRIS MOLINA, Plaintiff, v. HARVARD MAINTENANCE, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

IRIS MOLINA, Plaintiff,
v.
HARVARD MAINTENANCE, Defendant.

No. 20 Civ. 10993 (LGS)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

November 11, 2021

OPINION & ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, DISTRICT JUDGE:

Defendant Harvard Maintenance, Inc., moves pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 3 and 4, and the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., for an order dismissing the Complaint in its entirety, or in the alternative, staying proceedings, in favor of arbitration. For the reasons stated below, this action is stayed pending arbitration of Plaintiff's claims.

I.BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the Complaint and the parties' submissions on this motion. See Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220, 229 (2d Cir. 2016).

Plaintiff worked for Defendant in New York, New York, from April 2013 to November 2018 as a housekeeper. On January 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a charge of employment discrimination and retaliation based on national origin and gender with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”). The EEOC issued a right to sue letter on November 13, 2020. Plaintiff filed this action on December 29, 2020, asserting claims under (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., (“Title VII”) and (2) the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. (“NYCHRL”).

1

Plaintiff is a member of a union, SEIU Local 32BJ (the “Union”). The Union negotiated a collective bargaining agreement -- the 2016 New York City Independent Contractors Agreement (“CBA”) -- between itself and Defendant, which was in effect at the relevant time. Article XIII of the CBA (“No Discrimination Clause”) provides:

30. NO DISCRIMINATION. There shall be no discrimination against any present or future employee by reason of race, creed, color, age, disability, national origin, sex, union membership, sexual orientation, or any characteristic protected by law, including, but not limited to, claims made pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Family Medical Leave Act, the New York City Human Rights Code or any other similar laws, rules or regulations. All such claims shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedure (Articles V and VI) as the sole and exclusive remedy for violations Arbitrators shall apply appropriate law in rendering decisions based upon claims of discrimination

Article VI, Paragraph 1 of the CBA (the “Arbitration Clause”) provides for arbitration of disputes arising under the CBA:

There shall at all times be a Contract Arbitrator to decide all differences arising between the parties as to interpretation, application or performance of any part of this Agreement and such other issues as the parties are expressly required to arbitrate before him/her under the terms of this Agreement

Article VI identifies the Contract Arbitrator as the “Office of the Contract Arbitrator-Building Service Industry.”

Plaintiff complained to Defendant about hostile, abusive and discriminatory conduct of two security guards, and had her son come to the workplace to make similar complaints on her behalf. After she was terminated, Plaintiff attempted to have the Union address her claims against Defendant. Plaintiff complained to the Union of discrimination and harassment in the workplace, and that she was fired in retaliation for complaining. On December 17, 2018, the Union sent a letter to Defendant informing it of Plaintiff's complaint. On May 5, 2019, the Union sent another letter requesting that the harassment cease and desist. The Union spoke with

2

Plaintiff in a brief phone call and inquired why Plaintiff's son had come to the workplace but did not ask for any details about the harassment or discrimination. On June 4, 2020, the Union sent a letter to Plaintiff stating that her “complaint lacks sufficient merit for the Union to be likely to prevail in arbitration.” Following the Union's failure to bring her claims to arbitration, Plaintiff commenced this action on December 23, 2020.

II. STANDARD

“The FAA embodies a national policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements founded upon a desire to preserve the parties' ability to agree to arbitrate, rather than litigate, [their] disputes.” Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Alemayehu, 934 F.3d 245, 250 (2d Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration. Daly v. Citigroup Inc., 939 F.3d 415, 421 (2d Cir. 2019).

Prior to compelling arbitration, the district court must first determine two threshold issues: (1) whether the parties agreed to arbitrate, and (2) the scope of that agreement. Id. In evaluating whether the parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement and their intent, the court must “apply ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts.” DDK Hotels, LLC v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 6 F.4th 308, 317 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943 (1920)).

Court proceedings must be stayed once the district court is “satisfied that the parties have agreed in writing to arbitrate that dispute.” Cooper v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., 990 F.3d 173, 179 (2d Cir. 2021) (emphasis in original). In deciding this issue, courts apply a “standard similar to that applicable for a motion for summary judgment.” Id. at 179-80. Courts must “consider all relevant, admissible evidence submitted by the parties and contained in pleadings,

3

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with . . . affidavits, ” and must “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” Id. at 180. “Where the undisputed facts in the record require the matter of arbitrability to be decided against one side or the other as a matter of law, [a court] may rule on the basis of that legal issue and avoid the need for further court proceedings.” Starke v. SquareTrade, Inc., 913 F.3d 279, 288 (2d Cir. 2019).

III. DISCUSSION

a. Agreement to Arbitrate Claims at Issue

The Union entered into a valid arbitration agreement with Defendant, Plaintiff's claims fall within its scope, and Plaintiff is bound by that agreement. As further explained below, Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is granted.

Here, Plaintiff does not dispute that she is subject to the CBA between the Union and Defendant, nor does she dispute that her claims fall within the scope of claims intended to be arbitrated. Instead, Plaintiff argues that she is entitled to litigate here in the district court and that the arbitration agreement is invalid as applied to her. Plaintiff's argument is that the agreement impermissibly waives her...