Hoffmann v. Mary Giuliani Catering & Events, Inc.

Background

Jenna Hoffmann sued Mary Giuliani Catering & Events, Inc. (MGCE), Mary Giuliani, LLC, and Mary Giuliani. She asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York Labor Law. Her claims involved alleged discrimination based on her Jewish association and disabilities, retaliation, sexual harassment, and unpaid overtime wages.

Hoffmann worked for MGCE as an event producer from June 14, 2021, through August 4, 2021. On her first day, she signed a confidentiality and restrictive-covenant agreement requiring arbitration of “any and all” disputes arising from or relating to her employment or its termination. Her amended complaint added allegations about sexualized workplace conduct, including comments about her clothing, servers wearing revealing clothing at an event, guests touching servers, and sexually explicit workplace discussions.

Defendants moved to compel arbitration, dismiss Hoffmann’s sexual-harassment claims, and obtain attorney’s fees and/or sanctions.

Arbitration issue

The parties did not dispute that an arbitration agreement existed or that Hoffmann’s claims fell within its scope. Hoffmann argued that the Ending Forced Arbitration Act (EFAA) barred enforcement of the agreement because her case included sexual-harassment claims.

The court held that the EFAA applies only to disputes or claims that arose or accrued on or after March 3, 2022, the Act’s enactment date. Hoffmann’s employment ended in August 2021, and the alleged sexual-harassment conduct occurred before that date. The court therefore held that the EFAA did not apply retroactively to her claims.

Hoffmann also argued that Defendants’ filing of a counterclaim on September 27, 2024, was a retaliatory act that caused her claims to accrue again. The court rejected that argument for two reasons. First, the amended complaint did not allege that the counterclaim was retaliatory; Hoffmann raised that theory for the first time in her opposition brief. Second, even if the amended complaint had included the theory, the counterclaim was a different type of act from the alleged sexual harassment and occurred about three years later, after Hoffmann no longer worked for MGCE. The court concluded that the counterclaim could not make the EFAA applicable to the sexual-harassment claims under § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, or the New York City Human Rights Law.

The court emphasized that it was not deciding the merits of Hoffmann’s retaliation claims concerning the allegedly baseless counterclaim. It stated that Hoffmann could raise those claims before the arbitrator.

Rulings

The court granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. It held that Hoffmann was bound by the mandatory arbitration agreement because the EFAA did not apply.

The court denied without prejudice Defendants’ motion to dismiss Hoffmann’s sexual-harassment claims and denied without prejudice the motion for attorney’s fees. The court said those issues were properly raised before the arbitrator and declined to decide them.

The case was stayed pending arbitration. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 27 and mark the case as stayed.