Acevedo v. Harvard Maintenance Company

Background

Marcos Acevedo, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Harvard Maintenance Co. and Servete Drazhi. The opinion says that Acevedo worked as a porter for Harvard Maintenance from 2017 until his employment was terminated in December 2018. He alleged discrimination based on race, age, and sexual orientation, as well as retaliation and harassment. He asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Acevedo had filed complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights in July and December 2018. The agency found no probable cause or insufficient evidence supporting his discrimination claims. Acevedo also pursued a union grievance and arbitration concerning his termination. The arbitrator heard evidence and arguments, including the union’s position that the stated reason for termination was a pretext and that Acevedo had been fired in retaliation for complaining about harassment. The arbitrator concluded that Harvard Maintenance had just cause to terminate him and found the pretext claim unsupported by the evidence.

Defendants filed an unopposed motion to dismiss. The court explained that Acevedo’s failure to oppose the motion did not automatically justify dismissal, so it reviewed the complaint and the defendants’ arguments. For the Title VII claim against Harvard Maintenance, the court converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment after finding that Acevedo had received adequate notice that materials outside the complaint might be considered.

Rulings

New York City Human Rights Law claim. The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over this claim because the New York City Human Rights Law’s election-of-remedies provision bars a court claim arising from the same alleged discriminatory conduct after the plaintiff has filed a related complaint with the state human-rights agency. The court found that Acevedo’s federal case involved the same or nearly identical underlying facts as his state administrative complaint. It dismissed the New York City Human Rights Law claim against both defendants with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Claims against Drazhi. The court held that individuals cannot be held liable under Title VII or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. It therefore dismissed Acevedo’s Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims against Drazhi with prejudice.

Age-discrimination claim against Harvard Maintenance. The court held that Acevedo had not plausibly alleged that age was the reason for any adverse employment action. The complaint did not identify facts supporting an inference of age-based discrimination or show that younger employees were treated more favorably. The court dismissed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim against Harvard Maintenance with prejudice.

Title VII claims against Harvard Maintenance. The collective bargaining agreement required arbitration of statutory discrimination claims, expressly referred to Title VII and other antidiscrimination laws, and described arbitration as the sole and exclusive remedy. The court held that this was a clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate statutory discrimination claims.

Applying claim preclusion, also called res judicata, the court held that the arbitration was a final decision on the merits concerning Acevedo’s termination and retaliation claims. Harvard Maintenance was a party to the arbitration, and the union represented Acevedo’s interests. The court concluded that claims concerning the termination and retaliation were based on the same facts that had been addressed in arbitration. It granted summary judgment for the defendants on the Title VII claims against Harvard Maintenance to the extent they were based on Acevedo’s termination.

The court reached a different conclusion about harassment and hostile-work-environment allegations based on conduct separate from the termination. It found that those allegations were not shown to be part of the same set of facts as the termination claim and therefore were not barred by claim preclusion. The court denied the motion to dismiss as to the Title VII claim to that extent. However, because the collective bargaining agreement required arbitration of that claim, the court granted defendants’ alternative motion to compel arbitration. The court then dismissed the case in favor of arbitration, directed entry of judgment, and closed the case.

Effect of the order

The order ended the federal case. The New York City Human Rights Law claim, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims, and the Title VII claims against Drazhi were dismissed with prejudice. Summary judgment was granted against the Title VII claims against Harvard Maintenance based on the termination. The remaining Title VII harassment-related claim was ordered to arbitration rather than litigated in federal court.