Bright-Asante v. Saks & Co.
242 F. Supp. 3d 229
S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Michael Bright-Asante, an African American former Saks sales associate and member of Local 1102, was suspended without pay in Sept. 2014 after a store fraud investigation; criminal charges were later dismissed in Mar. 2015.
- The Local 1102–Saks collective bargaining agreement (CBA) sets a three-step grievance process culminating in optional arbitration and contains a non-discrimination clause but does not explicitly reference federal/state statutory claims or require arbitration for them.
- Local 1102 filed a grievance; arbitration later occurred without plaintiff’s participation, and the arbitrator denied the union’s grievance based on store testimony identifying plaintiff in video evidence.
- Plaintiff filed suit alleging race discrimination (Section 1981 and NYCHRL), breach of the CBA, NYLL retaliation (opposition to unemployment benefits), and constructive discharge; he sought to vacate the arbitration award and to amend his complaint.
- Saks moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss certain claims and sought Rule 11 sanctions; plaintiff moved to amend and to vacate the arbitration award.
- The district court denied vacatur and amendment to add vacatur claims, denied sanctions, compelled arbitration for the CBA breach claim, denied arbitration as to statutory discrimination claims, dismissed the NYCHRL discrimination claim without prejudice, dismissed the NYLL retaliation claim, and allowed the constructive discharge claim to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the arbitration award be vacated / may plaintiff amend to add vacatur claim? | Award procured by union misconduct and false testimony; plaintiff argues manifest disregard/fraud. | Award reflects arbitrator’s factual findings; plaintiff and counsel did not participate at arbitration; no statutory ground for vacatur shown. | Denied: plaintiff failed to show statutory grounds for vacatur or manifest disregard; amendment to add vacatur claim denied. |
| Are Rule 11 sanctions warranted for plaintiff’s motion to amend? | Amendment based on alleged union perfunctory representation; reliance on DelCostello line. | Motion was frivolous and unsupported; sanctions appropriate. | Denied: plaintiff’s argument not wholly without basis; Rule 11 relief inappropriate. |
| Do the CBA grievance/arbitration provisions mandate arbitration of statutory claims (Section 1981, NYCHRL, NYLL)? | CBA did not clearly and unmistakably require arbitration of federal/state statutory claims. | CBA’s arbitration clause covers disputes arising under the agreement and thus mandates arbitration. | Mixed: Breach of CBA claim compelled to arbitration (preempted by §301 LMRA); statutory discrimination claims not compelled—CBA lacks clear-and-unmistakable language. |
| Should claims be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6)? (race discrimination, constructive discharge, NYLL retaliation) | Plaintiff asserts race discrimination, constructive discharge from indefinite unpaid suspension, and retaliation via opposition to unemployment benefits. | Saks moves to dismiss race claim for pleading defects, constructive discharge for failure to plead hostile work environment, and retaliation as non-actionable employer opposition. | Race discrimination (NYCHRL) dismissed without prejudice (leave to amend). Constructive discharge claim survives. NYLL retaliation claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given absent justification)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983) (union’s breach of fair representation can excuse exhaustion of contract grievance remedies)
- Jock v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 646 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2011) (strong federal policy favoring enforcement of arbitration awards)
- Westerbeke Corp. v. Daihatsu Motor Co., 304 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2002) (arbitrator’s factual findings generally not subject to judicial challenge)
- Suders v. Pennsylvania State Police, 542 U.S. 129 (2004) (distinguishing hostile-environment constructive discharge standards)