The court found that Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence that she

The court found that plaintiff failed to provide

This preview shows page 11 - 13 out of 35 pages.

The court found that Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence that she was subjected to discriminatory treatment and awarded summary judgment to the hotel. 5.Kassner, et al., v. 2ndAvenue Delicatessen, Inc., et al.,496 F.3d 229, 101 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. 259 (2d Cir. 07/24/07). Two waitresses, ages 79 and 61, filed suit against their employer alleging age discrimination when the deli assigned each of them to work stations and shifts where earnings were lower than those of younger waitresses. The appellate court found that assignments to less desirable work stations and shifts can, depending on the facts, constitute a materially adverse employment action, and denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Employment/Discrimination/Disability 6.Okoro v. Marriott International, Inc. and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel,2007 WL 980429 (S.D.N.Y. 04/03/07). Plaintiff, an employee at The Ritz-Carlton, New York, was dismissed from his housekeeping position when the Defendant learned that Plaintiff was involved in an arbitration dispute with Marriott International, the parent company of The Ritz-Carlton, from when he worked at the Marriott Marquis. The dispute with Marriott was still pending when Plaintiff began working at the Ritz. Plaintiff was terminated from employment and filed a grievance challenging his termination through his union representative. Plaintiff signed a settlement
Background image
© - Copyright 2008, Karen Morris, Esq. and Diana S. Barber, J.D., CHE 12agreement and release and was compensated for such release with a severance and references. Plaintiff denies receiving a severance and references. Marriott filed for summary judgment which the court denied since Plaintiff raised a material fact as to whether he signed a release waiver knowingly and voluntarily. 7.Quitto v. Bay Colony Golf Club, Inc., 2007 WL 2002537 (M.D. Fla. 07/05/07). Plaintiff, a sous chef in Defendant’s kitchen tripped while at work and injured his hip. He took FMLA leave for surgery and came back to light duty work. He was terminated based on his medical condition which limited the amount of weight he could lift. The job description listed heavy lifting as a function of the position however, not all duties were mandatory. Plaintiff sued claiming violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court denied summary judgment for Defendant. It determined that, while defendant was not disabled, he may have been perceived as disabled by Defendant, entitling him to protection under the ADA. Additionally, an issue of fact existed as to whether defendant requested a reasonable accommodation. 8.EEOC v. BobRich Enterprises, Inc., 2007 WL 669547 (N.D. Tex. 07/27/07). EEOC brought a claim on behalf of an employee who uses hearing aids and lip-reading against a Subway franchisee based on offensive remarks made by management. The comments included, “have you got your ears on” and “read my lips” The jury found for the employee and awarded her a $166,500 verdict.
Background image
Image of page 13

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture