Garnes v. Pritchard Industries, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-10674
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Garnes v. Pritchard Industries, Judge Engelmayer compelled arbitration of Garnes’s employment claims and stayed the case.
Mark Garnes and Pritchard Industries, Inc.; Garnes’s Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims must proceed in arbitration, and the federal case is stayed pending that arbitration.
What happened
In Garnes v. Pritchard Industries, pro se plaintiff Mark Garnes sued his former employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The employer asked the court to dismiss the case or require arbitration.
The court reviewed Garnes’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation. Garnes argued that only his union could require arbitration and that the union’s failure to pursue his grievance prevented him from enforcing his rights. The court disagreed because the collective bargaining agreement covered these claims, allowed either the union or an individual employee to start arbitration, and required the arbitrator to apply applicable discrimination law.
Judge Engelmayer adopted the recommendation, compelled Garnes to arbitrate his claims, and stayed the case while arbitration proceeds. The opinion says “Title VI” in its conclusion, but the rest of the opinion identifies the claims as arising under Title VII.
The detailed version
- Garnes v. Pritchard Industries, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10674
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 6, 2023
Background
Mark Garnes, representing himself, sued his former employer, Pritchard Industries, Inc., asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Pritchard moved to dismiss the case or, alternatively, to compel arbitration. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave recommended compelling arbitration, denying the rest of the motion without prejudice, and staying the case while arbitration proceeded. Garnes objected to that recommendation.
Garnes’s objections
Garnes argued that he lacked the authority to initiate or require arbitration and that only his union, Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union, had that authority. The court rejected that argument after reviewing the collective bargaining agreement. The agreement states that discrimination claims, including claims under Title VII and § 1981, must use the agreement’s grievance and arbitration procedure as the sole and exclusive remedy. It also states that a covered claim may be made by either the union or an individual employee.
Garnes also argued that the union’s failure to pursue his grievance or arbitration had eliminated his substantive rights. The court rejected that argument, finding that the arbitration process allowed Garnes to pursue his claims without the union’s support and required the arbitrator to apply appropriate law in deciding discrimination claims. The court therefore concluded that Garnes could effectively pursue his statutory rights in arbitration.
Disposition
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations in full, compelled Garnes to arbitrate his Title VII and § 1981 claims, and stayed the case pending arbitration. The opinion’s conclusion refers to “Title VI,” but the complaint, analysis, and collective bargaining agreement discussed Title VII. The court also directed the Clerk to mail Garnes a copy of the decision.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.