Moody v. Empire Hotel Development, Inc.

Background

Amanda Moody, Martina Robinson, and several other plaintiffs sued Hyatt Corporation, Hyatt Place Franchising, L.L.C., Hyatt Hotels Corporation, Empire Hotel Development, Inc., and Erfan Khan. They asserted race-discrimination, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The other named plaintiffs later settled and voluntarily dismissed their claims, leaving Moody and Robinson as the remaining named plaintiffs.

Moody worked for Empire as a cook and later became kitchen manager before being changed back to the cook position. She resigned after that change. Robinson worked first in housekeeping and later at the front desk. She left after receiving written warnings and alleging that scheduling changes targeted her. Both plaintiffs described allegedly race-based treatment by Hyatt’s corporate trainer and Empire’s housekeeping manager, including derogatory language and different treatment of African American employees.

Rulings on the Hyatt Defendants

The court granted the Hyatt defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It held that the record did not support treating Hyatt as a joint employer. A joint employer is an entity that shares significant control over an employee’s employment terms and conditions. The court emphasized that Empire hired the plaintiffs, set their pay and schedules, defined their duties, maintained their employment records, issued their paychecks, administered discipline, and supervised their daily work.

The court found that Hyatt was not involved in those employment decisions. The franchise relationship and Hyatt’s one-week brand-standards training did not show that Hyatt exercised significant control over the plaintiffs’ employment. The court therefore granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims against the Hyatt defendants in their entirety and did not reach Hyatt’s alternative arguments.

Moody’s Claims Against the Empire Defendants

The court held that Moody’s temporary scheduling and workload issues, uniform requirement, and constructive-discharge theory did not establish a materially adverse employment action. A materially adverse employment action is a significant change in the terms or conditions of employment. The court also held that the alleged conduct did not make Moody’s working conditions intolerable enough to constitute constructive discharge, which requires deliberately created conditions that would objectively force a reasonable employee to quit.

The court reached a different conclusion about Moody’s change from kitchen manager to cook. Even though her pay and responsibilities apparently did not change, the court found that the reduced title could have diminished the position’s prestige. The fact that a newly rehired employee who was not African American took the managerial title could also support an inference of race discrimination. Because Empire did not offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the change, the court denied summary judgment as to Moody’s Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law, and § 1981 disparate-treatment claims, but only to the extent they relied on that demotion. The opinion does not clearly identify the date of the demotion.

The court rejected Moody’s constructive-discharge claim, finding that the alleged scheduling, workload, uniform, demotion, and derogatory-language evidence did not establish an intolerable workplace. It also rejected the retaliation claims. Although Moody had evidence of protected complaints about workplace treatment, the record did not establish when the demotion occurred in relation to those complaints. The court concluded that Moody therefore lacked evidence of the required causal connection between protected activity and the demotion.

Robinson’s Claims and Khan’s Liability

The court granted the Empire defendants’ motion as to Robinson’s disparate-treatment claims. Robinson’s evidence about her uniform, a written warning, workload, overnight security staffing, and alleged constructive discharge did not show a materially adverse employment action under circumstances supporting an inference of race discrimination. The court also granted summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ hostile-work-environment claim, concluding that the alleged comments and conduct did not meet the required severe-or-pervasive standard.

The court held that all claims against Khan should be dismissed. Section 1981 and the New York State Human Rights Law can impose individual liability, but the plaintiff must show the individual’s personal involvement in the alleged discrimination. The court found no admissible evidence that Khan personally participated in Moody’s demotion or in rehiring the person who took the managerial title.

Disposition

The court granted the Hyatt defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granted the Empire defendants’ motion for summary judgment in part. Robinson’s claims were dismissed in their entirety. Moody’s claims were dismissed except for her first, third, and fourth claims alleging disparate treatment under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and § 1981, and those claims survived only insofar as Moody’s mid-July 2019 demotion could constitute a race-based adverse employment action. All claims against Khan were dismissed. The court also granted the defendants’ motion to seal specified unredacted documents and directed the clerk to terminate the Hyatt entities and Khan as defendants.