Occilien v. Related Partners Inc.

Background

Guerda Occilien, representing herself, sued Related Partners, Inc.; Artero Jimenez; Katherine Block; several Hudson Yards entities; and Russell Tobin & Associates (RTA). She asserted employment-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging a hostile work environment, sexual harassment, failure to hire, and retaliation. Occilien is described in the opinion as a Black woman of Haitian national origin.

RTA had placed Occilien with Related and its subsidiaries as a temporary worker. Occilien signed a Master Employment Agreement with RTA in August 2016. The agreement stated that she would remain an RTA employee rather than an employee of the client, and it contained a broad arbitration clause covering employment disputes, discrimination claims, and improper treatment connected with her employment.

Occilien argued that the agreement ended in November 2016, when the Related employee for whom she had been filling in returned from maternity leave. She also questioned the agreement’s validity because two copies were submitted—one with a digital signature and one with a physical signature—and raised concerns about her transfer to another Related subsidiary.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the Federal Arbitration Act, which generally requires enforcement of written arbitration agreements. It examined whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate and whether the agreement covered Occilien’s claims.

The court ruled that the Master Agreement did not end in November 2016. It had no specific expiration date and instead continued until Occilien was terminated, quit, or completed her services. The court found that Occilien did not allege that she quit or was terminated at that time and continued working for Related after the transfer. The agreement and the temporary-worker arrangement also contemplated assignments to multiple Related subsidiaries.

The court rejected Occilien’s challenge based on the two copies of the agreement. It found that the copies were identical except for the type of signature and that Occilien had not provided evidence that either copy was forged, substituted, or otherwise improper. The court therefore found the Master Agreement enforceable and in effect when the alleged harassment occurred.

The court also concluded that the arbitration clause covered all of Occilien’s claims. The clause applied to any employment dispute between Occilien and RTA or the client, expressly included employment-discrimination claims, and specifically referenced Title VII claims. The court further stated that any claims based on disclosure of the agreement, privacy, confidentiality, or the transfer to another subsidiary would also fall within the clause’s broad scope.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Because all of Occilien’s claims were referred to arbitration, the court stayed the action rather than dismissing it. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss and ordered the parties to update the court about the arbitration’s status by April 29, 2021.