Simmons v. Marriot Court Yard

Background

Dawnia Simmons was hired by Marriott as a housekeeping aide at the Courtyard San Ramon on September 5, 2017. The complaint named the defendant as “Marriot Court Yard,” but the opinion identifies the defendant as Courtyard Management Corporation, which it also calls “Marriott.”

Simmons took a leave of absence and resigned on March 4, 2018, by giving a handwritten resignation letter to a housekeeping supervisor. In June 2018, she complained to Marriott that a former general manager had prevented her from obtaining other company jobs because she is African American. She also complained that she had not received a pay increase. Marriott investigated, paid her $98.70 in retroactive wages and $3,240 in waiting-time penalties, and corrected an internal record that had mistakenly listed her as involuntarily terminated rather than as having resigned.

Simmons’s remaining claim was for defamation. She alleged that the former general manager told hiring managers at prospective employers that Simmons had been fired for misconduct, was a troublemaker, was hard to work with, and had a criminal background. The court had previously dismissed her retaliation and discrimination claims, leaving only defamation for this motion.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is a ruling without a trial. It is proper when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Once the moving party makes that showing, the opposing party must identify specific admissible evidence that could allow a reasonable jury to rule in its favor.

Evidentiary rulings

The court held that the documents Simmons submitted with her opposition were not properly authenticated. Authentication means providing enough evidence to show that a document is what the party claims it is. The court also held that Simmons’s deposition descriptions of statements allegedly made by unnamed hiring managers were hearsay—out-of-court statements offered to prove what they asserted—and did not fall within an exception to the hearsay rule.

The court therefore concluded that Simmons had not offered admissible evidence disputing Marriott’s showing. It did not weigh witness credibility, because credibility determinations are generally not made on summary judgment.

Analysis

The court held that the defamation claim was barred by California’s one-year statute of limitations. A defamation claim generally accrues when the allegedly defamatory statement is communicated to someone other than the person allegedly defamed. Simmons did not identify any alleged statements after she received her retroactive pay and waiting-time penalties in July 2018. The court found that the lawsuit, filed on August 1, 2019, was more than one year after any alleged statements.

The court also ruled independently that Simmons had not established “publication,” an element of defamation. Publication requires communication of the allegedly defamatory statement to a third person. The court found no admissible evidence that Marriott or its representatives communicated with potential employers about Simmons. Simmons acknowledged that she had no knowledge of what the former general manager said and relied on an inference based on the manager’s position and access to personnel records. The court found that inference insufficient, particularly in light of evidence that the manager did not speak with hiring managers at other hotels about Simmons.

Because the court resolved the motion on the statute of limitations and lack of admissible evidence of publication, it did not need to decide whether the alleged statements were true, opinions, or privileged communications.

Disposition

The court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The opinion does not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” qualification to that ruling.