Garcia v. Marc Tetro, Inc.

Background

Cindy Garcia alleged that the defendants fired her in 2017 because of her national origin. She cited Marc Tetro’s comments that English was not her “mother tongue” and that she needed to consider her accent while seeking future employment. Garcia asserted a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The federal court’s jurisdiction was based on Garcia’s Title VII claim and its potential supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims. The opinion states that the parties did not have complete diversity of citizenship.

Title VII Claim

The defendants moved for summary judgment, a procedure that allows a court to decide a claim when the undisputed facts show that one side is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. They argued, among other things, that they were not an “employer” covered by Title VII because they did not employ at least 15 people for the required period.

Garcia agreed that the defendants were not covered employers under Title VII. The defendants submitted timesheets showing that they did not employ 15 or more employees for at least 20 weeks in either 2016 or 2017. The court found no contrary evidence and concluded that there was no genuine dispute about the defendants’ lack of coverage. It therefore granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Garcia’s Title VII claim.

State-Law Claims and Supplemental Jurisdiction

The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction may allow a federal court to hear related state-law claims arising from the same underlying events. But after dismissing all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, the court could decline to hear the remaining state-law claims.

The court considered judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts. It found that judicial economy favored declining jurisdiction because the case had not progressed beyond summary judgment briefing and the court had not fully assessed whether the evidence supported Garcia’s discrimination allegations. Convenience did not favor keeping the case because the defendants had not provided specific support for their claim that moving the litigation to state court would be prohibitively expensive. Fairness was neutral, and the court found that the defendants’ own earlier request had sought dismissal of the state claims if the federal claim were dismissed. Respect for state courts also favored declining jurisdiction, particularly because the New York City Human Rights Law requires an analysis separate from federal law.

Disposition

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). It dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice, meaning the opinion did not bar Garcia from refiling those claims in state court. The Clerk was directed to terminate pending deadlines and motions and close the case.