Garcia v. 35 W. 9th Owners Co-op

Background

Jhen P. Garcia, representing himself, sued 35 W. 9th Owners Co-op, Maxwell-Kates, Arabella Bowen, and Joshua Holzer. He asserted employment discrimination and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Laws, and New York Labor Law § 215. His allegations included discrimination based on race, ancestry, and ethnicity, denial of overtime pay, retaliation, and wrongful termination.

Garcia alleged that he worked as a doorman beginning in September 2022 and was treated unfairly, including being required to work extra hours without pay and being harassed because of his Dominican heritage. He also alleged that management did not promote him, called Dominican employees “lazy,” and retaliated after he reported mistreatment. He alleged that he was terminated on June 1, 2023.

The Arbitration Motion

The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on a collective bargaining agreement connected to Garcia’s alleged membership in Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union. Garcia disputed that he was a union member and said he had never paid union dues, received union credentials, or benefited from union protections. He later stated that a union representative confirmed that he was not on the union roster.

The court explained that the party seeking arbitration must first show that a valid arbitration agreement exists. Under New York contract law, that requires determining whether the parties formed an agreement and, if so, whether the dispute falls within its scope. A union member may be bound by a collective bargaining agreement’s arbitration provision even without personally agreeing to it. The court also explained that evidence relevant to union membership can include dues payments, membership cards, union benefits, employment records, and statements from union officials.

Court’s Analysis

The defendants submitted portions of the collective bargaining agreement, an affidavit from Joshua Holzer, records from an employment portal, and Garcia’s union-assigned employee identification number. The defendants did not provide evidence that Garcia paid union dues or participated in union benefits. They also did not provide evidence that the union was the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all employees, including nonunion employees.

The court concluded that the defendants’ evidence raised indications that Garcia may have been a union member. But Garcia’s statement that a union representative told him he was not on the union roster created a genuine dispute about a material fact. Because no discovery had occurred and the court was required to interpret Garcia’s self-represented filings liberally, the court found that dispute sufficient to defeat the motion.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration without prejudice. It also denied the defendants’ letter motion as moot and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions at ECF Nos. 24 and 41. The matter was to be referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for general pretrial matters in a separate order. The court did not resolve the merits of Garcia’s underlying employment claims.