Hardy v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of New York
690 F. App'x 60
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Wayne L. Hardy, pro se, sued his former employer Pepsi‑Cola Bottling Company of New York (PCNY) alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the ADA, and sought relief after an arbitration and related events.
- The Southern District of New York granted summary judgment for PCNY on March 31, 2016; Hardy appealed pro se to the Second Circuit.
- Hardy also asserted a retaliation claim based on his filing of a workers’ compensation claim and alleged the arbitrator violated New York Workers’ Compensation Law and the collective bargaining agreement.
- The district court denied Hardy’s motions for appointment of counsel; he challenged that denial on appeal.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and affirmed for substantially the reasons given by the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment for PCNY on Title VII/ADA claims was improper | Hardy argued his discrimination/retaliation claims had merit | PCNY argued there was no triable issue and summary judgment was appropriate | Affirmed: district court properly granted summary judgment for PCNY |
| Whether Hardy could bring a workers’ compensation retaliation claim in federal district court | Hardy argued PCNY retaliated for filing workers’ comp claim | PCNY (and law) argued such retaliation claims fall exclusively within Workers’ Compensation Board jurisdiction | Held: Dismissed — exclusive jurisdiction in Workers’ Compensation Board; federal court cannot entertain that claim |
| Whether appellate court should consider Hardy’s argument that the arbitrator violated law/CBA raised for first time on appeal | Hardy raised arbitrator‑violation claim on appeal | PCNY argued issue was waived because not raised below | Held: Not considered — court declined to consider issues raised for first time on appeal |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying appointment of counsel | Hardy sought appointed counsel | PCNY opposed; court applied discretionary standard and threshold requirement of substantive likelihood | Held: Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; Hardy’s claim did not meet threshold for appointment |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. Hartford Police Dep’t, 706 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Isabella v. Koubek, 733 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2013) (Workers’ Compensation Board has exclusive jurisdiction over retaliation claims under New York law)
- Harrison v. Republic of Sudan, 838 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2016) (issues raised first on appeal generally not considered)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc., 865 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1988) (standard of review for denial of counsel is abuse of discretion)
- Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986) (threshold requirement for appointment of counsel: claim must appear likely to be of substance)