Jordan v. Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC

Background

Jassmere Jordan filed a first amended complaint against Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC. Kimpton moved to dismiss the complaint. The opinion addresses whether Jordan’s allegations were sufficient to proceed, rather than deciding the ultimate truth of those allegations.

Court’s analysis

Constructive discharge. Kimpton argued that Jordan had not adequately pleaded constructive discharge, which is a claim that working conditions became so extreme that a reasonable employee would feel forced to leave. Jordan alleged that she sought reasonable accommodations because of a complicated pregnancy and injuries, including pain and a need for more rest. She also alleged that management knew about her condition and difficulties, denied her accommodation request, and continued assigning her a high number of rooms compared with a typical worker. The court held that these allegations plausibly suggested that a reasonable pregnant and injured employee could find the circumstances extraordinary and egregious enough to leave the job.

California Labor Code claims. Kimpton argued that Jordan had not alleged protected activity, meaning conduct protected from retaliation under the statutes she invoked. The court concluded that her allegations plausibly fell within those protections. Her complaints to her manager about the number of rooms she was expected to clean and whether she could safely perform the work were plausibly good-faith complaints about unsafe working conditions under California Labor Code section 6310. Her alleged complaints to management about discrimination were sufficient under section 98.6. The court also concluded that complaining to management that Kimpton was unlawfully discriminating and retaliating against her could constitute protected activity under section 1102.5.

Hostile work environment. Kimpton argued that personnel-related actions could not support a harassment claim. The court explained that, under California law, personnel actions may support such a claim when they have the secondary effect of communicating hostility, particularly as part of a widespread pattern of bias. Although the court described Jordan’s allegations as thin, it found it plausible that her manager’s scheduling choices were intended to harass and convey hostility. Because Jordan allegedly experienced the schedule whenever she worked, the court concluded that whether the conduct was sufficiently pervasive to create a hostile work environment was a question of fact.

Ruling and next steps

The court denied Kimpton’s motion to dismiss Jordan’s first amended complaint. The opinion scheduled an initial case management conference for July 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. by Zoom, and required a joint case management statement by July 7, 2025. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order on June 20, 2025.