Almanzar v. Millenium Hotels

Background

Roberto Almanzar worked at the Millenium Hotel beginning in 1976 and most recently held the position of stewarding manager as a non-union employee. After being hospitalized for internal bleeding, he took medical leave in October 2016. After his twelve weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act ended, the hotel approved an additional twelve weeks as an accommodation. Almanzar tried to return before that extended leave expired, but the hotel requested a more detailed medical assessment. His cardiologist reported that he could return with modified duties, including limits on walking and lifting.

On May 19, 2017, the hotel terminated Almanzar. It said he could not perform all aspects of the stewarding-manager job, that the position was being eliminated before Hilton Management Company took over management, and that the position had remained vacant for 24 weeks without harming the hotel. Almanzar disputed the job’s physical requirements and argued that the position had not actually been eliminated. The estate later became the plaintiff in the case.

Claims and Summary Judgment

The court construed the amended complaint as asserting age- and disability-discrimination claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The hotel moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence presents a genuine dispute requiring a trial. The estate also moved to strike the hotel’s answer and sought sanctions based on alleged discovery failures, loss of employment records, and problems with the hotel’s witness.

For the federal claims, the court assumed, without deciding, that the estate had made an initial showing of discrimination. The hotel then offered nondiscriminatory reasons for eliminating the position. The court held that Almanzar’s testimony created a genuine factual dispute about whether standing and lifting were essential job functions. But under the required “but-for” causation standard, that dispute was not enough. The estate also had to present evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that the position would not have been eliminated because of the Hilton transition or because the hotel considered the position unnecessary.

The court found that the estate had not presented that evidence. The February 2017 organizational chart showed only that the position had not been eliminated at that earlier time. The August 2017 email listing Almanzar as a purchasing manager was inaccurate or outdated and did not show that he remained an active employee or that the stewarding-manager position continued. The estate’s general suggestion that a temporary modified-duty position might have been available was unsupported by evidence identifying a suitable position or the hotel’s staffing needs. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the ADA and ADEA claims because the estate had not shown that age or disability was a but-for cause of the termination.

The court treated the NYSHRL claims as subject to the same causation standard and granted summary judgment on those claims for the same reason. It also stated that counsel had not meaningfully argued those claims and may have abandoned them.

The court addressed the NYCHRL claims separately because that law uses a broader causation standard. The hotel argued that the estate failed to serve copies of the complaint on the required city representatives. The court noted that the estate had made no effort to correct the service problem for more than two years and had not addressed the issue in its summary-judgment opposition. The court therefore regarded the NYCHRL claims as abandoned and granted summary judgment on them.

Damages and Sanctions

The court said the hotel’s argument that Almanzar failed to mitigate damages was moot because the claims did not survive summary judgment. The court nevertheless stated that, if the claims had survived, Almanzar’s deposition testimony would have shown an insufficient effort to find other work. The court declined to consider the late changes to that testimony because counsel submitted the deposition errata sheet four days late and identified no sufficient reason to excuse the delay.

The court denied the estate’s motion to strike the hotel’s answer and impose other sanctions in its entirety. It found no basis under the discovery-sanctions rules, the rule governing improper filings, or the rule allowing a court to strike improper pleading material. The hotel had produced a witness for its organizational deposition, had disclosed potential witnesses, and had offered a non-frivolous defense. The court also found no appropriate sanction for the alleged loss of Almanzar’s employment file because the estate had not shown material prejudice, and it found that the estate raised its other discovery complaints too late. The court closed the case and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motions and deadlines.