Barker v. Aramark Unif. & Career Apparel, LLC

1

RONALD BARKER, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, LLC, Defendant.

No. 19-CV-2710 (PKC) (SMG)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

September 30, 2021

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

PAMELA K. CHEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Ronald Barker, proceeding pro se, sued his former employer, Defendant Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC (“Aramark”), alleging violations of 42 U.S.C § 1981, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), New York State Executive Law §§ 296 et seq. (“NYSHRL”), and the New York City Administrative Code §§ 8-101 et seq. and § 8-107(15) (“NYCHRL”). On September 22, 2020, the Court granted summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff's claims “under 42 U.S.C § 1981, Title VII, [] the NYCHRL, [and the] NYSHRL.” Barker v. Aramark Unif. & Career Apparel, LLC, No. 19-CV-2710 (PKC) (SMG), 2020 WL 5645092, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2020). The Court explained that these claims were barred by a Settlement Agreement between the parties where Plaintiff had “waive[d] and release[d] any and all claims and allegations asserted in” his proceeding before the New York State Division of Human Rights (“NYSDHR” or “SDHR”) “arising from or relating to any and all acts, events and omissions alleged or that could have been alleged in the SDHR Proceeding, including, but not limited to, the laws of the State of New York[.]” (Settlement Agreement, Dkt 31, at ECF^[1] 50). Because “the factual allegations that form the basis of [Plaintiff's] complaint [we]re clearly substantively identical to those he asserted in the NYSDHR proceeding, ” he could not sustain his federal action seeking relief that would have been available to him in the NYSDHR proceeding. Barker, 2020 WL 5645092, at *6.

But because “a Title VII punitive damages claim [is] distinct from underlying state discrimination claims for res judicata purposes, ” the Court concluded that “it [was] not entirely clear to the Court that the waived ‘claims and allegations asserted in the SDHR Proceeding' unambiguously include[d] Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages under Title VII.” Id. at *7 (citing Nestor v. Pratt & Whitney, 466 F.3d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 2006)). The Court thus permitted limited discovery and additional briefing “regarding any reservation of Plaintiff's right to bring a claim for punitive damages under Title VII in federal court.” Id. at *10.

Before the Court is Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the motion.

BACKGROUND^[2]

I. Plaintiff's Experience at Aramark

Plaintiff began working for Defendant, an industrial laundry and uniform rental business, in 2015 as a “route salesman/truck driver.” (Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. 1, at ECF 12, 71.)^[3] In the summer of 2016, Defendant restructured its drivers' routes. (Id. at ECF 69.) According to Plaintiff, the purpose of the restructuring was to “level the playing field” because white drivers were at the time being paid more than black drivers. (Id. at ECF 71.) The white drivers protested the restructuring and filed an (ultimately unsuccessful) grievance with the Laundry, Distribution & Food Service Joint Board, Workers United Union (the “Union”), which has a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with Defendant. (Id. at ECF 14; see also Id. at ECF 45.) Plaintiff also alleges that his co-workers were upset that he, a black man, was assigned stops on Long Island. (Id. at ECF 71.)

After the reorganization, a white driver, Brian Calhoun, complained about the re-routing to Dave Gambardella, an Aramark manager. (Id.) Gambardella gave some of Plaintiff's stops to Calhoun. (Id. at ECF 71.) When Plaintiff approached Gambardella about his stops, Gambardella stated, “this is how we look after our own, ” and then employed “stereotypical ‘Black phrases, '” such as “you know what I'm saying homie?” (Id.)

Plaintiff also raised the stop-reassignment issue with Defendant's assistant general manager and general manager, but they similarly refused to act. (Id.) Plaintiff then attempted to lodge a grievance with the Union, but the filing was delayed because Calhoun, the white driver who had received Plaintiff's stops, was the assistant shop steward responsible for filing grievances at Aramark and did not file Plaintiff's grievance. (Id.) Eventually, Plaintiff filed his grievance by contacting a union representative directly. (Id.) Plaintiff eventually left his job in late summer 2017. (Id. at ECF 71.)

II. Plaintiff's NYSDHR Complaint

On January 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint with the NYSDHR charging Defendant “with an unlawful discriminatory practice relating to employment in violation of Article 15 of the Executive Law of the [NYSHRL] because of race/color.” (Id. at ECF 10, 12.)

As part of its investigation, the NYSDHR interviewed Plaintiff, as well as two witnesses identified by Plaintiff, both of whom had heard the manager Gambardella make “racially charged derogatory comments” toward black people on multiple occasions. (Id. at ECF 72.) The parties also engaged in briefing. (See Id. at ECF 16-32.) Plaintiff supplemented the allegations in his NYSDHR Complaint in his April 22, 2018 reply to Defendant's response, claiming, inter alia, that in addition to changing his stops, Defendant had not properly compensated him, because it failed to pay him the “loss and ruin” pay he was owed from August to November 2016. (Id. at ECF 31, 71).

On July 24, 2018, the NYSDHR issued its Determination After Investigation, in which it found “probable cause” to proceed on Plaintiff's NYSDHR Complaint. (Id. at ECF 72.) The case was calendared for a pre-hearing settlement conference in front of an NYSDHR Administrative Law Judge. (Id. at ECF 75.)

III. The Settlement Agreement

The parties began settlement talks in September 2018, after the NYSDHR issued its Determination. (Declaration of Steven M. Friedman (“Friedman Decl.”), Dkt. 31, at ECF 3 ¶ 11.)^[4]Plaintiff was not represented by counsel at first, but then retained counsel in February 2019. (Id. ¶ 14.) On April 8, 2019, Plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with Defendant (the “Settlement Agreement”). (See Id. ¶ 17; Settlement Agreement, Dkt. 31, at ECF 49-55.) Plaintiff signed the Settlement Agreement while on a conference call “with Aramark's attorney's [sic] Michael Fleming and Melissa Rodriguez, along with [his] attorney Stephen James[.]” (Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.'s Opp”), Dkt. 24, at 1.)

The signed Settlement Agreement contained, among others, the following provisions:

WHEREAS, Barker filed a verified complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (the “SDHR”), captioned New York State Division of Human Rights on the Complaint of Ronald Barker v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC, Case No. 10193046, for alleged unpaid wages and/or commissions and unlawful discriminatory practices relating to his employment with Aramark (“SDHR Proceeding”);

. . .

WHEREAS, Barker expressly reserves any rights he may have to pursue any claims of racial discrimination and related issues not addressed within the purview and jurisdiction of the SDHR Public Hearing that is scheduled for 4/10 and 4/11/2019, before the Division. Additionally, this agreement does not in any way, preclude or inhibit Barker from pursuing whatever remedies that may be available to him in Federal Court, regarding said claims not addressed in the SDHR Hearing;

WHEREAS, Barker intends to fully pursue his arbitration case currently pending regarding his complaints against Aramark not addressed within the purview and jurisdiction of the SDHR and by signing this agreement, Barker, in no way, intends to waive or forfeit any remedies sought pursuant to said arbitration proceedings not addressed in the SDHR Hearing.

WHEREAS, Barker is represented by Stephen G. James, Esq., and Barker represents that he is satisfied that his counsel has used best efforts to pursue and resolve the disputes in a manner that is fair to his interests. Barker represents that he has discussed all aspects of his claims and allegations and this Agreement with his counsel, has been fully advised by his counsel as to his rights, understands that he is waiving significant legal rights by signing this Agreement, and enters into this Agreement voluntarily, with a full understanding of the Agreement and all of its terms.

. . .

WAIVER & RELEASE. Barker waives and releases any and all claims and allegations asserted in the SDHR Proceeding against the Company and all of its parent, subsidiary and affiliated companies or entities, including the entities listed in Exhibit 21.1 to Aramark's 2017 United States Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K filing, and all of their past and present officers, directors, employees, agents and assigns (collectively, “Releasees”), including but not limited to Aramark American Food Services, Inc., Aramark Food and Support Services Group, Inc., and Aramark School Support Services, LLC, d/b/a Aramark Schools, LLC, arising from or relating to any and all acts, events and omissions alleged or that could have been alleged in the SDHR Proceeding, including, but not limited to, the laws of the State of New York including, but not limited to the New York State Executive Law, including its Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, the New York State Wage Payment Laws, the New York State Equal Rights Law, the New York State Equal Pay Law, the retaliation provisions of the New York State Workers' Compensation and Disability Benefits Laws, the New York State Labor Law and any applicable Wage Orders, the New York Occupational Safety and Health Laws, all as amended.

(Settlement Agreement, Dkt. 31, at ECF 49-50.)

As part of the Settlement Agreement, Defendant...