Del Villar v. Hyatt Hotels Corporation

Background

Angela Del Villar, a Hispanic woman who worked as a room attendant at a Hyatt hotel, alleged that Neil Francois, a Hyatt engineering employee and union delegate, sexually harassed her for several years. Her claims against Hyatt included hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Hyatt alone moved for summary judgment, a procedure allowing judgment without a trial when the admissible evidence shows no genuine dispute over an important fact.

On July 10, 2018, Francois forcefully embraced Del Villar and tried to kiss her in a utility closet. Two days later, during a conversation in the hotel cafeteria, Del Villar used the n-word while explaining why she and other room attendants found Francois’s reference to them as “blue shirts” offensive. Hyatt investigated both complaints. It terminated Del Villar for using the racial epithet and later terminated Francois based on Del Villar’s sexual-harassment complaint and supporting video footage.

An arbitrator later found that Francois had sexually harassed Del Villar and that Del Villar had used the word in question, but not as a racial slur directed at Francois. The arbitrator initially found Del Villar’s discharge unwarranted and later imposed a one-month unpaid suspension. Hyatt reinstated Del Villar with back pay, a pay raise, and benefits. Judge Furman treated the arbitration findings as evidence relevant to summary judgment but did not treat them as automatically binding on the statutory claims.

Hostile-Work-Environment and Sexual-Harassment Claims

Hyatt did not dispute, for purposes of its motion, that Francois’s conduct subjected Del Villar to a hostile work environment. The issue was whether Hyatt could be held legally responsible for a coworker’s conduct.

The court concluded that Hyatt had provided a reasonable avenue for complaints. Del Villar received Hyatt’s antidiscrimination policy and reporting procedures, acknowledged receiving them, knew about the policy and reporting procedures, and had received training. When she reported Francois’s harassment to human resources, Hyatt immediately investigated and promptly terminated him. The court rejected Del Villar’s argument that Hyatt should have known about the harassment earlier because she testified that she had not previously reported it to a supervisor or human resources representative and that managers were not present when Francois harassed her.

The court also rejected Del Villar’s argument that Francois should be treated as a supervisor. His role as a union delegate did not give him authority to take employment actions against Del Villar, and the undisputed facts showed that he was not her supervisor. The court therefore held that Del Villar had not shown a basis for holding Hyatt liable for Francois’s conduct under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, or the New York City Human Rights Law.

Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

For the federal and New York State discrimination and retaliation claims, the court applied the burden-shifting framework commonly used in employment cases. Even assuming Del Villar could establish an initial case of discrimination or retaliation, Hyatt offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reason for terminating her: her use of a racial epithet at work.

The court found that Del Villar identified no evidence showing that this explanation was a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. The arbitrator’s decision to reinstate her under the collective bargaining agreement did not establish discriminatory or retaliatory intent; it instead recognized mitigating circumstances and determined that termination was too severe. The court also noted that Hyatt had begun investigating Francois’s complaint before Del Villar reported her own sexual-harassment allegations, which weakened her retaliation theory.

The court reached the same result under the more protective standards of the New York City Human Rights Law. Del Villar presented no evidence that discrimination or retaliation played any role in Hyatt’s decision.

Disposition

The court granted Hyatt’s motion for summary judgment. This disposed of Del Villar’s claims against Hyatt, but it did not decide that she had not been sexually harassed or subjected to a hostile work environment. Francois had not moved for summary judgment, and the court did not grant judgment to him without a motion. Del Villar’s claims against Francois therefore remained pending. The court directed Del Villar and Francois to file pretrial statements and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Hyatt as a party.