Tatas v. Ali Baba's Terrace, Inc.

Background

Mehmet Emin Tatas, proceeding without a lawyer, sued his former employer, Ali Baba’s Terrace, Inc., its owner Ali Riza Dogan, and former coworkers Senol Bakir and Tolgahan Subakan. He alleged discrimination and a hostile work environment based on race and national origin under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He also alleged disability discrimination under the two New York statutes, Title VII claims, and a claim for back-pay damages. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which allows judgment without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over facts that could affect the result.

Tatas alleged that after the defendants learned he was Kurdish, they called him and his son terrorists, physically assaulted him, and otherwise harassed him. The defendants denied the alleged conduct and disputed when they learned Tatas was Kurdish. Tatas also alleged that Dogan mistreated him after he underwent surgery to remove basal cell carcinoma from his nose and later terminated him.

Rulings

The court granted the motion for summary judgment on the Title VII claims. A federal Title VII plaintiff generally must file suit within 90 days after receiving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s notice allowing a lawsuit. The notice was dated May 24, 2019, and the court presumed that Tatas received it by May 27, 2019. Because he filed his second lawsuit on September 18, 2019, the court found the Title VII claims untimely. The court also found no basis for extending the deadline under equitable tolling, a doctrine that can excuse a late filing in rare circumstances.

The court denied summary judgment on all claims against Bakir and Subakan based on insufficient service of process. Although the court noted that the service may have been insufficient, it found that Bakir and Subakan had actual notice of the case and waited too long to pursue that defense after participating in the litigation. The court concluded that they had forfeited the defense and stated that it would retain the case even if the defense had not been forfeited.

The court denied summary judgment on Tatas’s race and national-origin discrimination claims under Section 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The parties disputed whether Dogan was Kurdish, when the defendants learned Tatas was Kurdish, and whether the alleged verbal and physical attacks occurred. Because those disputes could affect whether the conduct was discriminatory, the court found that a trial was required to resolve them.

The court granted summary judgment on the disability-discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court recognized that cancer can qualify as a disability, but concluded that the basal cell carcinoma described in the record did not impair Tatas’s body sufficiently to qualify under these laws. Tatas returned to work the day after surgery and, apart from difficulty concentrating and taking pain medication for about a week, did not identify other challenges resulting from the condition or surgery. The court also stated that Tatas abandoned any disability-based hostile-work-environment claim by failing to address the defendants’ argument against it.

The court denied summary judgment on the hostile-work-environment claims under Section 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Tatas provided evidence that Bakir and Subakan called him and other Kurdish coworkers terrorists frequently, while the defendants denied making those statements. The court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could decide in Tatas’s favor and that the disputed evidence prevented summary judgment.

The court denied summary judgment on the back-pay claim. The parties disputed how Tatas’s prior and later earnings should be calculated, and Tatas argued that unemployment benefits should not count against any award. The court held that deciding whether unemployment benefits should be deducted was discretionary and premature before trial. It therefore could not decide as a matter of law whether Tatas could recover back pay.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment was granted on the Title VII claims and the disability-discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Summary judgment was denied on the service-related defense concerning Bakir and Subakan, the race and national-origin discrimination claims, the race- and national-origin-based hostile-work-environment claims, and the back-pay claim. Judge Ramos directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.