Garnes v. Pritchard Industries, Inc.

Background

Mark Garnes, representing himself, sued his former employer, Pritchard Industries, Inc. He asserted 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.

The parties’ collective bargaining agreements required arbitration of the relevant disputes. An arbitrator issued a November 15, 2023 award in Pritchard’s favor. Garnes moved to vacate, or set aside, that award. Pritchard moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or alternatively to compel arbitration. Pritchard also opposed Garnes’s motion to vacate; the court treated that opposition as a cross-motion to confirm the award.

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave recommended denying Garnes’s motion to vacate, granting Pritchard’s cross-motion to confirm the award, denying as moot Pritchard’s request to compel arbitration of claims covered by the award, and granting dismissal of the Labor Management Relations Act claim. Garnes objected to those recommendations.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed Garnes’s objections and adopted Judge Cave’s Report and Recommendation in full. Garnes argued that the arbitrator had disregarded Title VII by rejecting his proposed religious accommodations. He proposed either a transfer to an overnight shift or permission to work his regular shift while undergoing continual COVID-19 testing.

The court held that the arbitrator had considered these arguments. The arbitrator found that an overnight shift was unavailable and that Garnes’s working unvaccinated, even with frequent testing, would pose a direct threat because his work involved contact with Pritchard employees and the employees of Pritchard’s client, including entry into tenant spaces. The arbitrator therefore concluded that Pritchard had a well-supported basis for denying the requested accommodation and refusing to allow Garnes to work unvaccinated.

The court explained that an arbitration award receives substantial deference. To vacate an award for “manifest disregard of the law”—meaning that the arbitrator knew a clearly applicable legal rule but deliberately refused to apply it—a party must meet a demanding standard. The court found that Garnes had not shown that the arbitrator ignored applicable law. It also rejected his contention that the award was ambiguous or should be sent back to the arbitrator for clarification.

Disposition

The court denied Garnes’s motion to vacate and granted Pritchard’s cross-motion to confirm the arbitral award. In light of the award, the court denied as moot Pritchard’s motion to compel arbitration as to Garnes’s claims other than the Labor Management Relations Act claim.

The court granted Pritchard’s motion to dismiss the Labor Management Relations Act claim, and that claim was dismissed without prejudice. The court stated that Garnes could file an amended complaint alleging additional facts supporting that claim by January 17, 2025. Judge Engelmayer directed the Clerk to mail Garnes a copy of the decision and close all pending motions.