Molina v. Harvard Maintenance

Background

Iris Molina worked for Harvard Maintenance, Inc. as a housekeeper from April 2013 to November 2018. She filed an employment-discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging discrimination and retaliation based on national origin and gender. After receiving a right-to-sue letter, she brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Molina was a member of SEIU Local 32BJ. The union and Harvard Maintenance had negotiated a collective bargaining agreement that included a no-discrimination provision. That provision stated that discrimination claims, including claims under Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Code, were subject to the agreement’s grievance and arbitration process as the sole and exclusive remedy. The agreement also provided for a contract arbitrator to decide specified disputes.

Molina complained to Harvard Maintenance and the union about allegedly hostile, abusive, and discriminatory conduct by two security guards and about being fired in retaliation for complaining. The union notified Harvard Maintenance of her complaints but later told Molina that her complaint lacked sufficient merit for the union to be likely to prevail in arbitration.

Motion and arguments

Harvard Maintenance moved under the Federal Arbitration Act and the National Labor Relations Act to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, stay the case in favor of arbitration. Molina did not dispute that she was subject to the collective bargaining agreement or that her claims fell within the types of claims the agreement addressed. She argued instead that the agreement was invalid as applied to her because it required arbitration while allegedly allowing the union to prevent her from pursuing arbitration.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the collective bargaining agreement clearly required arbitration of Molina’s discrimination claims. Reading the agreement as a whole, the court distinguished between “Union claims,” which the union elected to pursue, and discrimination claims covered by the separate no-discrimination provision. The court held that Molina’s claims were not “Union claims” subject to the provision stating that such claims were brought by the union alone.

The court also held that the agreement did not prohibit Molina from pursuing her claims individually. The agreement did not expressly state that only the union could initiate arbitration, and Molina had not shown that the agreement prevented her from arbitrating before the designated contract arbitrator. The absence of a detailed procedure for individual arbitration did not, in the court’s view, eliminate her obligation to arbitrate or waive her right to seek statutory remedies. The Federal Arbitration Act’s presumption favoring arbitration also supported the court’s interpretation after finding a valid agreement covering the claims.

Disposition

The court granted Harvard Maintenance’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration. Molina was directed to submit her claims to the grievance and arbitration procedures in Article VI of the collective bargaining agreement. The court stated that she could seek further relief from it if she was prevented from submitting her claims to arbitration. The court also vacated the civil case management plan and scheduling order, required periodic status letters about the arbitration, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the docket entry for the motion.