Raine v. Courtyard by Marriott-Pleasant Hill, Corporation

Background

Katrece Raine worked as the general manager of a Courtyard by Marriott hotel from February 2003 until Courtyard terminated her on October 30, 2020. The opinion identifies the defendant as Courtyard Management Corporation and notes that it said it had been “erroneously sued as Courtyard by Marriott-Pleasant Hill.”

Before her termination, company employees reviewed Facebook posts by Raine, including a photograph of her wearing a shirt stating “Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor,” an image of an African American woman wearing a mask made of white hands, a post containing profanity, and a post about the hotel’s divestiture. The company later reviewed videos and photographs showing Raine’s outside business using hotel property and employees to promote bejeweled masks. Raine also acknowledged giving a discounted hotel rate to a person associated with another business, and the company reviewed a video in which Raine criticized a Marriott vendor’s construction work.

After an investigation, company officials concluded that Raine had violated several policies. The stated violations involved outside business activities, conflicts of interest, solicitation, discounted room rates, and business communications. A regional manager terminated Raine and gave her a document listing the reasons for the termination.

Raine later brought two claims: discrimination based on race under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Courtyard moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, which permits judgment without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Court’s Analysis

The court first rejected Raine’s argument that statements criticizing her Breonna Taylor post were direct evidence of racial bias. The court found that the statements showed displeasure with the post but did not contain disparaging or negative comments about African Americans. The court therefore analyzed the claim using circumstantial evidence.

Under the required three-step framework, Raine had to initially show facts supporting an inference of discrimination. The court found that she met that initial burden because she was African American, had been performing her job competently, was terminated, and was replaced by a Caucasian individual.

The burden then shifted to Courtyard to provide legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the termination. The court found that Courtyard met that burden. It held that the evidence was undisputed that Raine’s conduct violated five company policies: the Outside Business Activities policy, the Conflict of Interest section of the Ethical Conduct policy, the Solicitations policy, the Global Room Rate Discount Policy, and the Business Conduct Guide.

The burden then shifted back to Raine to present substantial evidence that Courtyard’s reasons were false or were a cover for racial discrimination. The court found that she did not do so. It rejected her arguments that her supervisor knew about or encouraged the conduct, that other employees were treated more favorably, and that the timing of the Breonna Taylor post and her termination established pretext. The court also found that the evidence did not show that the employees Raine identified were similarly situated or treated differently for comparable conduct.

Ruling

The court granted Courtyard’s motion for summary judgment on Raine’s FEHA claim. Because Raine’s wrongful-termination claim was based on the theory that Courtyard violated FEHA, the court also granted summary judgment on that claim. The court separately denied Raine’s request to file a sur-reply, explaining that it had not relied on the evidence she challenged.