Dahlberg v. Radisson Blu Mall of America

Background

Radisson hired Catherine Dahlberg as a front-office representative on September 7, 2016. Her duties included checking hotel guests in and out and responding to their questions and comments.

On October 12, 2016, a guest asked Dahlberg whether she was from China and then asked where in China she was from. Dahlberg said she was not comfortable answering and did not want to respond to personal questions. A supervisor told Dahlberg that friendly conversation was part of working in hospitality and offered to help her develop appropriate responses to uncomfortable questions.

On October 14, Dahlberg met with the human-resources director and the director of guest services. The meeting concerned whether Dahlberg could return to her duties. The accounts differed about what happened during the meeting, but the record included evidence that Dahlberg became upset and angry. Dahlberg said the human-resources director treated her poorly because of her race, but she later acknowledged that the director did not specifically refer to her race or national origin and did not use the wording Dahlberg had initially reported.

A director of facilities later told Dahlberg that she needed to leave for the day. Dahlberg said he immediately fired her; he stated that she was told to go home. After police and paramedics arrived, Dahlberg was taken to a hospital, where she remained for 72 hours on a psychiatric hold. She did not return to work the following week despite receiving her scheduled shifts. Radisson terminated her effective October 26, 2016, and notified her on November 1.

Dahlberg filed a discrimination charge with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. The department made a no-probable-cause determination, and that decision was affirmed on appeal. On October 2, 2018, Dahlberg sued Radisson under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging race and national-origin discrimination and retaliation. She sought $3 million in damages.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute over an important fact requires a jury’s decision and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court viewed the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Dahlberg, the nonmoving party, but required her to identify specific evidence supporting each essential element of her claims.

Discrimination claim

Title VII prohibits an employer from taking adverse employment action because of an employee’s race or national origin. The court found no direct evidence linking discriminatory intent to Radisson’s termination decision. Although Dahlberg initially said that the human-resources director and others had made explicit remarks about her being Chinese, she later retracted those statements and provided no other direct evidence of discriminatory intent.

The court therefore applied the burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. Under that framework, a plaintiff first must show, among other things, that she was meeting the employer’s legitimate expectations and that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated differently. If the plaintiff makes that initial showing, the employer must provide a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, after which the plaintiff must produce evidence that the reason was a pretext, or cover for discrimination.

The court held that Dahlberg failed to establish the initial showing. It found that her interaction with the guest showed she needed additional training to meet Radisson’s expectation that she interact with guests hospitably. The court also relied on her conduct after the October 14 events, including her failure to communicate with the human-resources director or director of guest services and her failure to return to work for two weeks. The court stated that she had effectively abandoned her job.

The court further held that the record did not show that non-Chinese employees were excused from the hospitality requirement or were not terminated for failing to report to work for two weeks. It also found no indication that Dahlberg’s ethnicity caused her termination. The court therefore granted Radisson summary judgment on the discrimination claim.

Retaliation claim

Dahlberg alleged that Radisson terminated her because she complained about the guest’s questions concerning her ethnicity. To establish a basic retaliation case under Title VII, she had to show that she engaged in legally protected conduct, that Radisson took a materially adverse action, and that the conduct and action were causally connected.

The court assumed, without deciding, that Dahlberg’s October 12 complaint qualified as protected conduct. It held that she could not show the required causal connection because Radisson’s decision followed intervening events unrelated to that complaint. The court therefore held that the retaliation claim failed as a matter of law.

Disposition

The court granted Radisson Blu Mall of America’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered.