Alexander v. Private Protective Services, Inc.

Background

Jeriel Alexander sued Private Protective Services, Inc. (PPS), a private security services firm, under the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged that PPS denied him entry to a film shoot at Pier 132 on October 3, 2019, because of his race. Alexander had previously worked for PPS from 2017 through 2018. The film shoot was part of a Big Fish Entertainment production, and PPS had contracted with Big Fish to provide security services.

PPS moved for summary judgment on Alexander’s remaining claim. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute of an important fact requires a trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Alexander also applied for Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron’s recusal. Judge Aaron recommended granting PPS’s motion and denying the recusal applications in a report and recommendation dated November 2, 2023.

NYCHRL claim

The court reviewed the disputed recommendations anew because Alexander objected to them. The New York City Human Rights Law prohibits denying a person the full and equal enjoyment of a public accommodation because of race. Liability under the provision requires the defendant to have a specified relationship to the place or provider of public accommodation, such as being its owner, manager, agent, or employee.

The court assumed, without deciding, that Pier 132 was a place or provider of public accommodation. It nevertheless held that the evidence did not show the relationship necessary to impose liability on PPS. PPS had contracted with Big Fish, the producer of the film shoot, and the record showed no contractual or other relationship between PPS and Pier 132 concerning the event. Alexander offered no evidence establishing that PPS acted as Pier 132’s agent. His assertion, based on his previous experience, that PPS typically assumes certain roles at locations where it provides services was unsupported by evidence.

Because PPS could not be liable under the NYCHRL on the evidence presented, the court did not decide whether Alexander was denied entry because of his race. The court also declined to consider new claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress because Alexander raised them for the first time in opposition to summary judgment and the claims had little support in the record.

Recusal applications

The court adopted the recommendation that Alexander’s applications for Judge Aaron’s recusal be denied. Alexander relied on actions including the denial of extensions and the award of attorney’s fees. The court explained that adverse rulings ordinarily are not a valid basis for disqualification and found Alexander’s other accusations of misconduct conclusory and baseless.

Attorney’s fees and disposition

The court declined to reconsider its earlier decision awarding PPS $16,760 in attorney’s fees. It stated that the issue had already been decided and was law of the case, meaning the court generally adheres to its earlier ruling in later stages of the same case absent compelling reasons to change it.

The court adopted the report and recommendation in full and overruled Alexander’s objections. It granted PPS’s motion for summary judgment and denied Alexander’s applications for Judge Aaron’s recusal. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for PPS and against Alexander for $16,760 in attorney’s fees, close the summary-judgment motion, and close the case.