496 F. App'x 104
2d Cir.2012Background
- McAllister, pro se plaintiff, sues CTR, GBAPP, and others for Title VII and ADA claims in district court.
- GBAPP moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; CTR moved to stay and compel arbitration.
- Court assumed familiarity with facts and procedural history; only necessary details summarized.
- District court dismissed McAllister’s claims against GBAPP for lack of facial plausibility and stayed/arbitrated per CTR's arbitration clause.
- This Second Circuit summary order affirmed, holding GBAPP not an employer and arbitration clause applicable to McAllister’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is GBAPP McAllister’s employer for Title VII/ADA purposes? | McAllister contends GBAPP’s actions were discriminatory, linking it to his claims. | GBAPP was not his employer; no allegations tie it to discriminatory conduct. | GBAPP not an employer; claims against GBAPP dismissed. |
| Whether arbitration should govern and proceedings be stayed | Arbitration not waived by CTR terms; issues arise under employment statutes. | Arbitration agreement covers claims and requires stay pending arbitration. | Arbitration agreement governs; district court’s stay and compel order affirmed. |
| Effect of a severance agreement on arbitration terms | Severance agreement could nullify CTR arbitration terms. | McAllister did not enter into the severance; terms not binding. | Severance agreement not binding; arbitration clause remains enforceable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Jet Blue Airways, 662 F.3d 593 (2d Cir. 2011) (de novo review for motion to dismiss; plausibility standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) (special solicitude for pro se pleadings)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (special solicitude in pro se cases)
- Ruotolo v. I.R.S., 28 F.3d 6 (2d Cir. 1994) (context for pro se interpretation)
- JLM Indus., Inc. v. Stolt-Nielsen SA, 387 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2004) (four-factor test for arbitrability)
- Ragone v. Atl. Video at Manhattan Ctr., 595 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2010) (arbitration of employment-discrimination claims)
- Gold v. Deutsche Aktiengesellschaft, 365 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2004) (arbitration preference under FAA)
- Bensadoun v. Jobe-Riat, 316 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2003) (summary judgment-like standard for arbitration motions)
- Vital v. Interfaith Med. Ctr., 168 F.3d 615 (2d Cir. 1999) (notice to pro se litigants on evidentiary support)
- Bridgeport Pipe Eng’g Co. v. DeMatteo Constr. Co., 268 A.2d 391 (Conn. 1970) (severance agreement not binding where not entered into)