Singh v. Universal Protection Service, LLC

Background

Harinder Jeet Singh, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an employment-discrimination and retaliation action against Universal Protection Services, LLC, doing business as Allied Universal Security Services, and Pref 7 West 51st Street, LLC, doing business as Sedesco, Inc. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

According to the complaint, Allied employed Singh as a Fire and Life Safety Director beginning in October 2020. Singh alleged that his weekly hours were reduced from 40 to 30 while a non-Indian coworker’s hours were not reduced. He also alleged that Allied removed him from his worksite without notice or an explanation on or around April 19, 2021, and replaced him with a non-Indian employee who lacked Singh’s certification.

Singh submitted two Equal Employment Opportunity Commission intake questionnaires on July 24, 2021, alleging race and national-origin discrimination against Allied and Sedesco. The opinion states that the EEOC later requested that he resubmit his paperwork, resulting in new charges filed in 2023. The EEOC dismissed both charges on March 27, 2024, and sent Singh notices of his right to sue. Singh filed this federal lawsuit on June 6, 2024.

Defendants’ Motions

Allied and Sedesco separately moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Their sole argument addressed in the opinion was that Singh had not timely exhausted the administrative process required for his Title VII claims because he had not filed an EEOC charge within 300 days of the alleged discrimination.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that, generally, a Title VII charge in New York must be filed within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory event. It also explained that an EEOC intake questionnaire can qualify as a charge when it identifies the parties and alleged conduct and shows an intent to have the EEOC investigate and take remedial action.

The court found that Singh’s 2021 intake questionnaires met those requirements. They identified Allied and Sedesco, described the alleged reduction in hours and removal from the worksite, and included Singh’s statement that he wanted to file a charge and authorized the EEOC to investigate. The EEOC’s alleged investigation and receipt of position statements from the parties provided additional evidence that the questionnaires functioned as charges.

The court further held that Singh’s 2023 charges were amendments to the timely 2021 charges. The later charges alleged the same discrimination and events and did not add new bases of discrimination. The court therefore treated them as amendments that corrected possible technical defects, including the absence of an oath or affirmation on the 2021 questionnaires, and that related back to the 2021 filing date.

Disposition

The court held that the defendants’ timeliness argument failed and denied both motions to dismiss. Defendants were ordered to file answers to the complaint within fourteen days after the opinion and order. The opinion did not decide whether Singh ultimately proved discrimination or retaliation.