Garcia v. Pritchard Industries LLC

Background

Alba Garcia, proceeding without a lawyer, sued her former employers, Pritchard Industries LLC and Macquarie Group. She asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging discrimination based on race, sex, and national origin, as well as retaliation, harassment, and a hostile work environment. The opinion states that Garcia worked as a cleaner for Pritchard from 1997 to 2017 and that her last assignment was with Macquarie. She also alleged sexual assaults by three Pritchard supervisors, denial of a position, mistreatment for being a non-Albanian woman, suspension, and termination.

Garcia had previously filed a grievance concerning her indefinite suspension. That matter proceeded to arbitration, and the arbitrator found that the defendants had just cause to discharge her based on her disciplinary record and alleged misconduct. The arbitration decision did not address discrimination or retaliation. Garcia also filed discrimination charges with the New York State Division of Human Rights, which were sent to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for dual filing. The first charge was dismissed, and Garcia did not seek review by the federal agency. A second charge was dismissed as untimely, after which the federal agency issued a notice allowing her to sue. Garcia filed this case within the stated 90-day period.

Defendants’ motions

The defendants moved to dismiss on two grounds: that the collective bargaining agreement required arbitration of Garcia’s claims and that she failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Because the arbitration argument sought to require arbitration, the court treated that portion of the motion as a motion to compel arbitration.

The collective bargaining agreement’s no-discrimination clause covered statutory discrimination claims, including claims under Title VII and § 1981. It provided for mediation and, when necessary, arbitration as the exclusive process for covered claims. The agreement also described a procedure for an employee whose union declined to arbitrate the employee’s discrimination claim. The opinion states that Garcia’s union notified her that it would not pursue her discrimination grievance but told her that she could pursue the claims herself through the agreement’s mediation and arbitration process.

Analysis and ruling

The court held that Garcia’s federal discrimination and retaliation claims fell within the agreement’s arbitration provisions. Garcia argued that the earlier arbitration about her suspension and termination had already covered the relevant events. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the prior arbitration addressed the termination but did not address discrimination or retaliation. Garcia acknowledged that her discrimination claims had not been presented in that arbitration, and she did not allege that she later pursued those claims through the required process.

The court stated that outright dismissal is ordinarily not appropriate when a court orders arbitration. Because the claims were arbitrable and a stay had been requested, the court granted a stay pending arbitration. The court denied the defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs because they identified no agreement, statute, court rule, or other authority allowing that award.

The court granted the defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part. It stayed the case pending arbitration of Garcia’s statutory discrimination claims under Title VII and § 1981. Because the case was being referred to arbitration, the court did not reach the defendants’ administrative-exhaustion arguments. The parties were directed to file joint status reports every 60 days, with the defendants coordinating and filing them. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.