Crawford v. US Security Associates

Background

Daaron Crawford filed a complaint against US Security Associates, alleging that the company discriminated against him because of a disability when it did not hire him for a security-guard position at the Goldman Sachs location. He alleged claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The opinion states that Crawford was representing himself.

Crawford had worked as a security guard for another contractor and took medical leave after a toe amputation related to diabetes. While on leave, he applied to work for US Security Associates after it took over the security contract. The company later told him that it had chosen other candidates. Crawford first contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in March 2018 and filed a formal charge in November 2018. The agency informed him that the charge was untimely.

Default and Service

After Crawford filed the lawsuit, the Clerk entered a certificate of default against US Security Associates. The company moved to set aside the default and dismiss the complaint. The court adopted the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the default should be vacated.

The court found that service of process was defective because Crawford’s affidavit did not state that he served a summons along with the complaint. The court also found that the complaint was served on a company receptionist who was not authorized to accept service for the corporation. The court further agreed that Crawford had not shown unfair prejudice from the company’s delay and that the company had presented a potentially meritorious defense based on the time limits for his claims.

Federal Claims

The court adopted the recommendation that Crawford’s federal claims be dismissed as time-barred. Before bringing an Americans with Disabilities Act or Title VII lawsuit, a plaintiff generally must file a timely discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In this case, the court applied the 300-day filing period and concluded that Crawford’s charge was filed well after that period had expired.

The court’s conclusion concerned the timing of the administrative charge, not whether Crawford had proved that US Security Associates discriminated against him. The court granted the motion to dismiss the federal claims with prejudice.

New York City Human Rights Law Claim

The court stated that New York City Human Rights Law claims have a three-year limitations period. But after dismissing all of the federal claims at the beginning of the case, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state or city claims alongside federal claims. The New York City Human Rights Law claim was dismissed without prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Paul G. Gardephe adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation as to Crawford’s federal claims, vacated the Clerk’s entry of default, and granted US Security Associates’s motion to dismiss the federal claims with prejudice. The court dismissed the New York City Human Rights Law claim without prejudice, directed the Clerk to close the case, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.