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

Background

Jhen P. Garcia, proceeding without a lawyer, sued 35 West 9th Street Owners Corp., Maxwell-Kates, Arabella Bowen, and Joshua Holzer. The opinion says Garcia alleged employment discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, based on management’s alleged hostility toward his Dominican heritage. Garcia had worked as a doorman at a building covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union.

The agreement applied to service employees and contained a grievance-and-arbitration procedure. It also stated that discrimination claims, including claims under Section 1981, were subject to that procedure as the sole and exclusive remedy. Garcia argued that the agreement did not bind him because he was not a union member. The opinion also notes that the defendants submitted evidence that Garcia in fact was a union member, but the court did not need to resolve that factual dispute because the agreement covered employees regardless of actual union membership.

Earlier Motion

The defendants previously moved to compel arbitration. On September 30, 2025, District Judge Andrew Carter denied that motion without prejudice because the defendants had not submitted enough of the collective bargaining agreement to show that the union was the exclusive bargaining representative for all employees at the building.

The defendants then filed the renewed motion addressed in this opinion and submitted the entire agreement, including its provision recognizing the union as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for all classifications of service employees at each covered apartment building.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the Federal Arbitration Act, a federal law that generally makes qualifying written arbitration agreements enforceable. It found that the collective bargaining agreement was valid and that its express reference to Section 1981 claims made the agreement to arbitrate those claims “clear and unmistakable.”

The court further held that the agreement bound Garcia even if he was not a union member because the union was authorized to negotiate on behalf of all covered service employees. The court concluded that Garcia’s claims fell within the agreement’s scope and that he was required to use the grievance and arbitration procedure. The court stated that Garcia could seek relief from the court later if he could not effectively pursue his statutory claims in arbitration.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion to compel arbitration was GRANTED, and the case was STAYED. Garcia was directed to submit his claims to the grievance and arbitration procedures in Articles V and VI of the collective bargaining agreement. The parties must file a joint status letter 60 days after the opinion and every 60 days afterward, and must promptly report any resolution or other event affecting the stay. The opinion was issued by Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge.