Manukian v. Procida Construction Corp.

Background

Armen Manukian, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Procida Construction Corp. over alleged unpaid wages and discrimination. He claimed that he should have been paid $65.25 per hour rather than $18 per hour and asserted discrimination claims that he identified as arising under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Manukian first worked for CW Metals in June 2018. During an orientation at the Tres Puentes worksite, he believed he was told that he would receive $65.25 per hour as a city laborer. The court noted, however, that Manukian was employed by CW Metals at that time, and that CW Metals paid him approximately $90 per hour for work at that site. Manukian later became a Procida employee in August 2018. He testified that no one at Procida promised him $65.25 per hour, and Procida maintained that its pay notice listed a rate of $18 per hour.

Manukian also argued that work at the Gilbert project should have been paid at a prevailing wage. The court found that the record showed the project was governed by a contract between private parties and was not subject to a public-works contract. Manukian had also testified that he was not told the project was a prevailing-wage job and did not believe that it was.

Manukian’s employment with Procida ended in February 2019. He alleged that he was deprived of further work and treated differently because of his Armenian identity, citizenship or immigration status, national origin, age, or experience. He testified that no one at Procida expressed hostility toward him because of his immigration status, made comments about his national origin, or provided a specific reason showing discriminatory motive. He also stated that he had no witnesses supporting his discrimination claims.

Legal standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court was required to view disputed facts in the light most favorable to Manukian, but he could not defeat the motion with unsupported assertions, speculation, or the allegations in his complaint alone. Because Manukian represented himself, the court read his filings liberally while still requiring evidence sufficient to support his claims.

Wage claim

The court held that Manukian did not establish that Procida was required by a contract, statute, or other legal obligation to pay more than $18 per hour. The alleged $65.25 promise occurred during an orientation when Manukian was employed by CW Metals, not Procida, and Manukian provided no evidence that the statement promised him that rate for later Procida work. He also conceded that, after Procida hired him, no one promised him $65.25 per hour and he identified no evidence establishing a contractual right to a higher rate.

The court separately rejected the prevailing-wage theory concerning the Gilbert project. The record showed that the project was a private construction project rather than a public-works project, and Manukian did not present evidence that public prevailing-wage requirements applied. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Manukian was entitled to more than $18 per hour as a Procida employee.

Discrimination claims

The court construed Manukian’s filings as asserting discrimination based on citizenship or immigration status and national origin, and it considered his later assertion of age discrimination. The court found that Manukian had not shown that he satisfied the administrative requirement for an Immigration and Nationality Act claim or the administrative exhaustion requirement for a Title VII claim. It also held that he could not add an age-discrimination claim for the first time in opposition to summary judgment.

The court further held that the discrimination claims failed on their merits. Manukian offered general statements that he felt he was treated differently because he was Armenian or not American, but he identified no specific incident showing different treatment because of nationality, citizenship, immigration status, or age. His statement that people asked where he was from, without more, did not establish discriminatory intent. A text exchange in which Manukian expressed his own belief that he was treated improperly because of his nationality also did not provide corroborating evidence. The court concluded that his unsupported assertions could not overcome summary judgment.

Disposition

The court granted Procida’s motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.