Lagerstrom v. Orsid Realty

Background

Benjamin Lagerstrom, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Orsid Realty and 61 West 9th Owners Corp. He alleged discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Lagerstrom worked as a doorman for the defendants from January 2001 until his termination on December 17, 2021.

Lagerstrom was a member of Service Employees International Union, Local 32BJ, and his employment was covered by a collective bargaining agreement, or CBA. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the defendants adopted a mandatory vaccination policy, subject to religious and medical exemptions. Lagerstrom alleged that he was exempt, refused vaccination, and was terminated.

The CBA included a nondiscrimination provision covering Title VII claims. It stated that those claims were subject to the CBA’s grievance and arbitration procedures as the sole and exclusive remedy. The CBA also allowed a union member to pursue a claim independently if the union did not do so.

Motions and Analysis

The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, the federal law governing enforcement of arbitration agreements, and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Lagerstrom moved to proceed directly to a jury trial.

The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, which held that a collective bargaining agreement can require union members to arbitrate federal employment-discrimination claims when the agreement clearly and unmistakably says so. The court concluded that the CBA clearly required Lagerstrom’s Title VII claims to proceed through mediation and arbitration.

The court rejected Lagerstrom’s argument that the defendants’ failure to seek arbitration before he filed suit excused him from the arbitration requirement. The court read the CBA as requiring Lagerstrom, either through a union representative or on his own, to pursue his claims through arbitration. The court also concluded that Lagerstrom’s allegations that the defendants threatened him did not show that the CBA prevented him from asserting his statutory rights, particularly because he did not allege that he first sought arbitration.

The court also distinguished an earlier decision involving similar parties and a similar CBA. That decision concerned wage claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law, while this case involved Title VII claims and a CBA provision expressly covering Title VII claims.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. It denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss because the Federal Arbitration Act requires a stay when the claims must be arbitrated and a stay has been requested. It also denied Lagerstrom’s motion to proceed directly to a jury trial.

The case was stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. The parties were directed to notify the court within 14 days after arbitration concluded and to submit a joint status letter if arbitration had not concluded by July 1, 2024.