Garnes v. Pritchard Industries, Inc.

Background

Mark Garnes, representing himself, sued his former employer, Pritchard Industries, Inc. The complaint appeared to assert claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA).

The parties agreed that Garnes was subject to mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures in collective bargaining agreements. An arbitration was conducted, and the arbitrator issued an award in Pritchard’s favor on November 15, 2023. The award related to the claims in this lawsuit.

Motions and Report

Pritchard moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, or alternatively asked the court to compel arbitration. Garnes moved to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award—that is, to set it aside or change it.

The court referred the motions to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave. Judge Cave recommended denying as moot Pritchard’s request to compel arbitration for the claims covered by the award, which were all claims except the LMRA claim. She recommended granting Pritchard’s motion to dismiss the LMRA claim. She also treated Pritchard’s opposition to Garnes’s motion to vacate as a cross-motion to confirm the award and recommended denying Garnes’s motion and granting Pritchard’s cross-motion.

Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation. Judge Engelmayer therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious error on the face of the record. He found no such error and adopted the report in its entirety.

Ruling

The court denied Garnes’s motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted Pritchard’s cross-motion to confirm the award. It denied as moot Pritchard’s motion to compel arbitration as to Garnes’s claims other than the LMRA claim.

The court also granted Pritchard’s motion to dismiss the LMRA claim. That claim was dismissed without prejudice, meaning the court allowed Garnes an opportunity to plead additional supporting facts. The court directed Garnes to file any amended complaint by September 11, 2024 and stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the case. The court also directed the clerk to close all pending motions.