Saleh v. Digital Realty Trust, Inc.

Background

Moner Saleh and Jose Henriquez asserted claims under the New York City Human Rights Law for discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation arising from their employment with Digital Realty Trust, Inc. Saleh alleged that Paul Bamrick was primarily responsible for conduct directed at him, while Henriquez alleged that Manuel Pego was primarily responsible for conduct directed at him.

Saleh alleged that, after Digital Realty acquired his former employer, he was demoted, required to work at a communal table with other dark-skinned employees, subjected to derogatory comments and offensive jokes, passed over for supervisory positions, and terminated after complaining about discriminatory hiring and promotion practices. Henriquez alleged that he and dark-skinned coworkers were assigned to a graveyard shift, that a less-experienced white employee received a lead-engineer position without Henriquez having an opportunity to apply, and that Pego subjected him to unfair discipline, abusive treatment, dangerous work, and racial epithets. Henriquez complained to human resources and later stopped working for Digital Realty, claiming constructive discharge.

Arbitration of Henriquez’s Claims

Digital Realty required employees to complete annual online acknowledgments of company policies, including a Dispute Resolution Agreement. The agreement required binding arbitration of employment-related claims, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful-discharge claims.

Henriquez denied that he had been given, read, or agreed to the arbitration agreement. The court nevertheless found that Digital Realty’s electronic records showed that Henriquez accessed the agreement, acknowledged reading it, and agreed to be bound by it. The records were linked to Henriquez’s unique serial number and Digital Realty email address. The court rejected his arguments that the records had been fabricated or that their timestamps were impossible, explaining that the timestamps reflected submission of the completed attestation rather than each individual click.

The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of Henriquez’s claims. The opinion states that Saleh never signed the agreement, and the defendants did not seek to compel arbitration of Saleh’s claims.

Severance

The court also granted the motion to sever the two plaintiffs’ claims. It found that the claims did not arise from the same connected events in a way that justified proceeding together. Saleh’s claims principally involved Bamrick, the 8th Avenue location, and events ending with Saleh’s termination in January 2019. Henriquez’s claims principally involved Pego, the 60 Hudson Street location, and events occurring before Henriquez stopped working in December 2021.

The court also found that the claims involved different alleged conduct, witnesses, and evidence, and that trying them together could create prejudice and inefficiency. Henriquez’s claims were therefore separated from Saleh’s claims and referred to arbitration, while Saleh’s claims remained before the court.

Motion to Dismiss and Disposition

The defendants moved to dismiss Henriquez’s claims. The court denied that motion. Because Henriquez’s claims were being sent to arbitration, the court stayed those claims pending the outcome of arbitration rather than deciding their merits. Saleh’s claims, which were not subject to arbitration, were to continue in this court.

The court thus granted the motion to compel arbitration, granted the motion to sever the claims of the two plaintiffs, and denied the motion to dismiss Henriquez’s claims.