Pierre v. Rochdale Village
1:18-cv-06383
| E.D.N.Y | Nov 19, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Joseph B. Pierre, a unionized public safety officer at Rochdale Village, alleged Title VII discrimination (religion and national origin) and retaliation after his June 4, 2018 termination.
- His employment was governed by a CBA that requires grievances to proceed through a 3-step process and permits the Union to submit unresolved grievances to binding arbitration under AAA rules; the CBA states Title VII claims are subject to those grievance/arbitration procedures.
- Plaintiff filed a CBA grievance, participated in Step 3 hearings, filed an EEOC charge, and later filed an NLRB charge alleging the Union refused to pursue arbitration; the NLRB dismissed and denied Plaintiff’s appeal, noting the Union had concluded arbitration would not succeed.
- Defendant moved to dismiss or stay and compel arbitration nearly a year after Plaintiff sued, asserting the CBA and AAA rules delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator.
- Plaintiff argued Defendant waived arbitration by litigating and by ignoring/ delaying arbitration requests; Defendant argued no prejudice and no notice. The Court stayed the case and compelled arbitration, denying Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and who decides arbitrability | Pierre did not dispute the CBA but contested waiver and certain procedural issues | Rochdale: CBA (incorporating AAA rules) is valid and clearly delegates arbitrability to the arbitrator | Court: Agreement valid and delegates procedural arbitrability to the arbitrator, except litigation-conduct waiver which the court may decide |
| Whether Rochdale waived arbitration by participating in litigation (litigation-conduct waiver) | Rochdale engaged in litigation and delayed nearly a year before moving to compel arbitration, prejudicing Pierre | Rochdale: litigation was limited (answer, mediation, settlement talks), no substantive motions or depositions, no prejudice | Court: No waiver by litigation conduct; delay and limited litigation did not cause demonstrated prejudice |
| Whether Rochdale waived arbitration by delaying or ignoring pre-suit arbitration requests / notice issues (procedural waiver) | Pierre alleges Defendant delayed/ignored his requests to arbitrate and Union refused to pursue arbitration | Rochdale: it had no notice of Pierre’s desire to arbitrate; Article 17 vests discretion with the Union; NLRB found Union acted in good faith | Held: Procedural questions about waiver, notice, time limits presumptively for the arbitrator to decide (per AAA/Howsam analysis) |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (FAA and Supreme Court endorse strong federal policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements)
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (2002) (procedural arbitrability questions are for the arbitrator unless parties clearly provide otherwise)
- Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) (courts determine existence of an arbitration agreement before referring disputes to arbitrators)
- Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017) (motion-to-compel standard akin to summary judgment; courts draw inferences for nonmovant)
- Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2016) (courts may consider documents integral to the complaint on motions to dismiss/compel)
- In re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co., 226 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2000) (waiver to arbitrate requires protracted litigation plus prejudice; prejudice is dispositive)
- La. Stadium & Expo. Dist. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 626 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2010) (factors for litigative waiver include time elapsed, amount of litigation, and prejudice)
- S & R Co. of Kingston v. Latona Trucking, Inc., 159 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 1998) (litigation activity, discovery, and motions relevant to waiver analysis)