Tatas v. Ali Baba's Terrace, Inc.

Background

Mehmet Emin Tatas, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Ali Baba’s Terrace, Inc.; Admiral Insurance Company; Ali Riza Dogan; Senol Bakir; and Tolgahan Subakan. Tatas alleged discriminatory conduct and a hostile work environment at Ali Baba’s based on his race and national origin. He asserted Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims against Ali Baba’s, discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and New York State and City law against all defendants, and New York common-law assault claims against Dogan.

According to the allegations, Tatas told Subakan about his Kurdish background in early 2016. Tatas alleged that Subakan and Bakir then called him a terrorist and a member of the Kurdish Workers Party, and that Dogan participated in the harassment. Tatas further alleged that Dogan hit him twice in February 2016 and kicked him three times on May 27, 2016, the day Dogan fired him. Tatas also alleged that Dogan told him not to return to work while recovering from facial surgery because his bandage might scare customers.

The defendants removed two state-court lawsuits to federal court, and the court consolidated them. The motions addressed three matters: Ali Baba’s motion to dismiss the Title VII claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to sue within the required time; Dogan’s motion to dismiss claims based on the February 2016 assaults as untimely; and Admiral’s motion to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim.

Claims Against Admiral

The court granted Admiral’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. It found that Tatas did not allege that Admiral itself did anything connected to his injuries. The court also held that Tatas could not hold Admiral responsible for the actions of Ali Baba’s or its employees merely because Admiral insured the restaurant.

Under the New York law discussed by the court, an injured person generally cannot sue an insurer directly unless the person first obtains a judgment against the insured, serves the insurer with the judgment, and waits 30 days for payment. Tatas had not satisfied those conditions and had not identified insurance-policy language creating a direct cause of action. The claims against Admiral were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling if the stated legal requirements were later met. The court nevertheless stated that an amended complaint would be futile at that point because Tatas had not obtained a judgment against any Admiral insured.

February Assault Claims

The court granted Dogan’s motion to dismiss the claims based on the two alleged February 2016 assaults. New York’s limitations period for assault claims is one year, and the first lawsuit was filed in May 2017, more than one year after those incidents. The court also declined Tatas’s request for equitable tolling, an exceptional extension of a filing deadline, because he did not identify circumstances that prevented him from asserting the February assault claims.

The February assault claims were dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. The alleged May 27, 2016 assault was timely because the lawsuit asserting it was filed on May 16, 2017, and that claim survived. Dogan had not moved to dismiss the May assault claim.

Title VII Claims

The court denied Ali Baba’s motion to dismiss the Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. The restaurant argued that Tatas had not timely filed his lawsuit after receiving a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court explained that administrative exhaustion and timely filing after an agency dismissal are affirmative defenses, meaning defenses that defendants generally must establish, rather than pleading requirements that Tatas had to address in his complaint.

Because Tatas’s complaints did not mention his administrative proceedings, the court could not decide on a motion to dismiss whether he had an equitable defense based on waiver, estoppel, or equitable tolling. The court stated that the restaurant could raise the defense later, including on a motion for summary judgment after discovery. The Title VII claims therefore remained in the case.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered the following:

- Admiral Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss was granted in its entirety, and all claims against Admiral were dismissed without prejudice. - Dogan’s motion to dismiss the February 2016 assault claims was granted, and those claims were dismissed with prejudice. - Ali Baba’s Terrace’s motion to dismiss the Title VII claims was denied.

The court directed the parties other than Admiral to appear for a status telephone conference and directed the Clerk to terminate Admiral from the action.