Benzinger v. Nysarc, Inc.

385 F. Supp. 3d 224 (2019) United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 2019-06-21

civil; Section 1981 contract and equal-benefit claims by a clinic patient against the building's security contractor over a guard's laughter at a porter's racial slurs in the lobby; contractor's Rule 12(b)(6) motion granted with prejudice as to Section 1981 (S.D.N.Y.) (result: claimant-lost)

Facts

  1. 1 Persons protected by equal contractual rights satisfied pleaded
    Plaintiff is an Asian-American man who resides in Queens, New York.
  2. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits not pleaded
    On June 21, 2016, Plaintiff entered the lobby of 83 Maiden Lane to make an appointment with Access Community Health Center ("Access"), a tenant of the building.
  3. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits not pleaded
    Plaintiff alleges that he did not attend his August 2016 follow-up appointment at Access, as he feared further racial harassment from Rivera and Brooks.
  4. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits not pleaded
    "liability under [ Section] 1981 for interference with a third-party contract attaches only to persons who actually had the power or authority to prevent the plaintiffs from contracting with the third party."
  5. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits not pleaded
    Plaintiff makes no allegation that Brooks was aware of Plaintiff's contract with Access, or that he or anyone else at UPS possessed sufficient authority to interfere with Plaintiff's ability to contract with Access.
  6. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits not pleaded
    Plaintiff has thus failed to allege that UPS can be held liable for interference with Plaintiff's contract.
  7. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits not pleaded
    The Court concludes that while blocking physical access to the lobby might prevent the formation of a contract with Access, Plaintiff has failed to allege that the contractual relationship with Access extended to interpersonal dealings he might have in the lobby while entering or exiting the building.
  8. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits not pleaded
    Plaintiff was not prevented from entering or exiting Access at any point on either day.
  9. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits not pleaded
    The Court finds that Plaintiff must plead he was directly denied the benefits of his contract, not that the conduct affected his decision not to continue engagement with a contractual partner.
  10. 4 Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement satisfied pleaded
    Plaintiff alleges that within his earshot, Rivera said to Brooks, "That chink says he's not Chinese, he said he's Korean. How can I tell the difference? All chinks look the same."
  11. 4 Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement satisfied pleaded
    He further alleges that both Rivera and Brooks laughed after this comment.
  12. 4 Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement satisfied pleaded
    Brooks and Rivera laughed together in response to these comments.
  13. 4 Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement satisfied pleaded
    "To establish a violation of [ Section] 1981, a plaintiff must show that a defendant's acts were purposefully discriminatory and racially motivated."
  14. 4 Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement satisfied pleaded
    the Court finds that allegations of repeated laughter in response to racist slurs in two separate incidents is sufficient to plead an intent to discriminate.
  15. 4 Judicial intentional-race-discrimination requirement satisfied pleaded
    The words "he ain't gonna say nothing to you" contain no reference to race, and Brooks took no action towards Plaintiff at that time.
  16. 6 Nongovernmental impairment satisfied pleaded
    Defendant UPS is a New York limited liability company that contracted to provide security services to 83 Maiden Lane.
  17. 15 Contract and retaliation scope with noncontract clauses identified not law
    To establish a violation of Section 1981's guarantee of "full and equal benefit" of laws, a plaintiff must "[i] allege racial animus ...; [ii] identify a relevant 'law or proceeding for the security of persons and property;' and [iii] allege that defendants deprived them of the 'full and equal benefit' thereof."
  18. 15 Contract and retaliation scope with noncontract clauses identified not law
    Plaintiff has alleged no nexus to state law, as the sole allegation discussed in this context is a violation the NYCHRL, a local anti-discrimination ordinance.
  19. 15 Contract and retaliation scope with noncontract clauses identified not law
    Accordingly, it concludes that Plaintiff cannot base a cause of action under Section 1981 on the violation of a law of New York City.