Jarvois v. Ferrara

Background

Fritz T. Jarvois worked as a porter in a building at 73 Fifth Avenue from approximately 2009 until his termination on January 9, 2018. He alleged that Defendants discriminated against him based on age, race, and religion. He also alleged harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and violations of his rights under a collective bargaining agreement.

Jarvois identified himself as a 56-year-old African American man and a Rastafarian. He alleged that Carole Ferrara supervised him and that Thomas Libretti was the building’s superintendent. The complaint alleged that Ferrara set his schedule, monitored his attendance, evaluated his work, and took disciplinary actions against him. Jarvois received written warnings, was suspended three times, and was terminated. He also alleged that Ferrara changed his schedule after he said he could not work Saturdays because of the Sabbath, and that his religious beliefs were questioned. The opinion states that it was unclear which corporate entity employed him.

Jarvois filed three complaints. Because he was representing himself, the court considered them together, along with their attachments, as the operative pleading. The court had previously dismissed some claims and allowed him to amend others. After he submitted an October 30, 2019 letter, the court treated that letter as his second amended complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Claims and analysis

The court stated that claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Due Process Clause against Ferrara had already been dismissed with prejudice because she was a private individual and therefore was not a proper defendant for those claims. Those claims remained dismissed.

The court then addressed the claims for which Jarvois had been allowed to amend: claims against Libretti, state-law claims, the racial-discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the claim under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.

Claims against Thomas Libretti

The court had previously dismissed the claims against Libretti without prejudice because Jarvois had not served him. The court had invited Jarvois to request more time to serve Libretti, but he did not request an extension, and the record did not show that he had taken steps to serve him. The court therefore found no reason to disturb the earlier dismissal.

Section 1981 claim against Carole Ferrara

Section 1981 protects the right to equal treatment under the law without racial discrimination. The court held that Jarvois did not plead enough facts to support an inference that Ferrara’s disciplinary actions or termination were motivated, even partly, by racial discrimination.

The court noted that Jarvois alleged disciplinary actions and termination, identified his race, and stated that his religious beliefs had been questioned. But he did not allege that Ferrara treated white employees more favorably, that he was replaced by a white employee, or that Ferrara was one of the people who questioned his religious beliefs. The court concluded that these allegations did not plausibly connect Ferrara’s conduct to racial discrimination.

The court also concluded that additional amendment was unlikely to fix the problem. Jarvois had already received two opportunities to replead and had not cured the pleading deficiencies. The court therefore dismissed the § 1981 claim with prejudice and denied leave to amend.

Collective-bargaining-agreement claim

The court construed Jarvois’s allegations about violations of the bargaining agreement as a claim under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Section 301 generally permits an employee to sue an employer for breaching a collective bargaining agreement, but the court stated that such claims generally cannot be brought against a person who was not a party to the agreement.

Jarvois alleged that Ferrara failed to follow procedures in the bargaining agreement and listed disciplinary actions she took against him. The complaint suggested that the union and Jarvois’s employer were parties to the agreement, but it did not plausibly allege that Ferrara was a signatory. The court held that this deficiency was fatal to the claim. It dismissed the § 301 claim with prejudice and denied leave to replead. The court expressly made no determination about whether Jarvois might have a viable claim against a signatory to the agreement.

State-law claims

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, after dismissing all claims based on federal law. It dismissed Jarvois’s state-law claims without prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Gregory H. Woods concluded that Jarvois’s § 1981 and § 301 claims against Ferrara were dismissed with prejudice and that he was denied leave to replead those claims. The claims against Libretti and the state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for Ferrara, close the case, and send Jarvois the opinion. The court also denied him permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.